FB Twitter G+ Instagram YouTube Pinterest
Verified ID
Email Address
Phone Number:
() -22
Member Since:
September 2014
137
RODEOS
FOLLOWING
0
1
FOLLOWERS

About gunrights

Hillsboro OregonUnited States-Member since September 2014

view gunrights's company homepage


GunRodeo Gun Rights delivers positive gun rights news and opinion on the pressing issues for the second amendment community. Keep reading as we cover the latest gun rights topics of the day.
        
Tuesday, May 21st
928 views

Arizona Repeals Ban on Nunchucks

Arizona has had a ban on nunchakus (Nunchucks) since the 1970's. They have finally passed a repeal on the ban of nunchakus. This ban was so vaguely written that it is technically a Class 4 felony to be in possession of a jump rope. This is because the law was written as “two or more…. handles, connected by a rope….”. California, Massachusetts and New York, also have had bans on nunchakus. However, in 2018, New York's ban was eliminated in federal court as a violation of the Second Amendment. The repeal of this ban will go into effect 90 days after the current legislative session ends.




It seems bizarre that weapons bans are based on works of fiction. Arguably, the switch-blade bans were pushed over the edge by “West Side Story”; the nunchaku bans by the kung-fu movies with Bruce Lee. There is a persistent rumor in Queensland, Australia, that the ban on pump shotguns in the 1996 weapons law was because a legislator saw one used in an Arnold Swartznegger movie.



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Tuesday, May 21st
978 views

Texas Votes to Repeal Weapons Bans

Texas legislature has voted to repeal the state ban on knuckles and clubs. The ban included the possession, manufacture, transportation, repair, or sale of these items. If the bill is signed into law, it will go into effect on September 1 2019.




The Texas Senate gave the bill its final OK on Wednesday morning; it now heads to Gov. Greg Abbott for his signature or veto. Abbott's staff did not immediately return a request for comment Wednesday. Bill author Rep. Joe Moody, D-El Paso, said the bill was “another step” toward getting rid of” antiquated laws regarding weapons.



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Friday, April 26th
7199 views

Colorado Red Flag Bill

Colorado has recently signed a red flag bill into law. They are now the fifteenth state to implement this type of bill, and 29 other states are currently in the process of considering enforcement. Colorado’s Governor, Jared Polis, signed HB 1177, the state’s red flag bill, into law. The legislation will take effect in 2020.




This new red flag law presents an interesting scenario because of it 2/3 of Colorado’s counties have become Second Amendment sanctuary counties. If somebody were to put a red flag on you, and the judge finds that you're a risk to yourself or others, you have 14 days for a hearing to prove your innocence. It used to be up to the government to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Monday, April 15th
9758 views

California Magazine Ban

It is now (again) illegal to purchase magazines holding more than ten rounds in California. Back in 2000, (the Duncan v. Becerra case) the court ruled that the California Magazine ban was unconstitutional and violated the Second Amendment.




California Attorney General Xavier Becerra's office file for an emergency stay against the judge’s ruling until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could hear their appeal. Initially, the AG's office claimed that there was no evidence that magazines were coming into the state. AmmoLand's reporting disputed this assessment and our research was used as “exhibit one” by the law offices of Michel & Associates, P.C. in their objection to the stay.



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Monday, April 15th
9756 views

New Pittsburgh Gun Control Laws

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto recently signed three new gun control bills. These bills were motivated by the tragic Tree of Life Shooting where a Nazi killed eleven unarmed people in a synagogue.




One of the bills prevents gun owners from having their rifle loaded. Semi-automatic rifles are to be rendered useless as shooting or chambering a round violates the law and warrants up to a $1000 fine.




The second bill would make it illegal to have loaded magazines (capable of holding more than ten rounds). It is still legal to own this type of magazine, but you just can't load them.




The last bill is "These Extreme Risk Protection Orders" (ERPO). It allows police to confiscate a person's guns without due process.




“Pittsburgh residents have a right to carry the self-defense tool that best suits their needs, and the NRA is proud to support this challenge to the city’s magazine ban,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. “Restricting law-abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional rights will do nothing to stop violent criminals.”



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Friday, April 12th
10446 views

Oregon Anti-Gun Bill

The Oregon state Senate Judiciary Committee recently voted to approve Senate Bill 978. The bill will:




Will allow firearm dealers to refuse service to people under the age of 21.


Impose strict firearm storage requirements.


Issue criminal penalties to gun owners if they fail to follow certain requirements when reporting stolen arms and holding the gun owner liable for the future illegal acts committed with the stolen firearm.


Makes home manufacturing firearms illegal.


Allow local governments to create “gun-free zones” in public buildings, colleges, and airports where carrying citizens would be disarmed


And Increase the fee to apply for a Concealed Handgun License.




This legislation is an omnibus gun control package that, among other things, would require firearms be kept unavailable for self-defense and would also expand gun free zones where law-abiding individuals would be left defenseless.



Read More Courtesy of NRA ILA...

Tuesday, March 19th
18196 views

Firearms Registration Act PA

A new bill has been introduced in Pennsylvania that would establish a gun registry within the state. The bill would require gun owners to register their firearms with the Pennsylvania State Police. Owners would be required to provide the police with the make, model, and the serial numbers of all their guns. In addition, the owner must: swear to under oath; submit fingerprints; two photographs (that are no older than 30 days); go through a background check; keep all firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock; provide their home and work address, telephone number, social security number, date of birth, age, sex, and citizenship.


Any gun owners would not be able to transfer an unregistered firearm. If caught with an unregistered gun, they are considered guilty of a crime- even holding an unregistered firearm at a range would be a crime. The gun owner has 48 hours to update the State Police if they change jobs, phone numbers, or address. The certification would cost $10 per firearm and expire after one year. This whole process must be done again to re-certify 60 days before the certificate expires. There is no mention of how this new law would be enforced.




HB0768 is known as the Firearms Registration Act. The Democrats that introduced the bill were Mary Louise Isaacson (D), Angel Cruz (D), and Mary Jo Daley (D). Last Friday, the General Assembly referred the bill to the committee on judiciary.



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Tuesday, March 19th
22682 views

FL Fake Gun Bill

Upon first seeing this, I thought it was some kind of joke or extreme exaggeration. But, upon investigation, this is a real proposal. Bill SB 1310 has recently been introduced to Florida Senate. The bill would make it illegal for anyone under 18 to post a picture on the internet of a firearm, BB gun, airsoft gun, or any other device that resembles a gun, including toy guns. If someone under 18 did post a picture of any sort of "gun" they would be charged with a misdemeanor, fined up to $1000 per violation, could be jailed for up to one year, and the firearm in question would be seized and destroyed. The law would also require the parents of the minor to attend parenting classes. On the second violation, the parents could be forced to do community service in addition to further courses. I personally doubt that this bill will have any traction, as it is clearly a first amendment violation.




This proposed law is the first of its kind in the country and might also violate the First Amendment. When asked about the First Amendment issues that would be facing the bill legislative assistants for Senator Pizzo, Linda Kraft stated that there would be an amendment to the proposed law to clear that up.



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Thursday, February 28th
21868 views

Oklahoma Constitutional Carry

HB 2597 was passed, making Oklahoma the 16th permitless carry state in America. The other 15 Constitutional Carry states include: Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming — and most of Arkansas and Montana.




“Kudos to Gov. Kevin Stitt for signing GOA-supported legislation that allows citizens to carry concealed without seeking prior permission from the government,” GOA Executive Director Erich Pratt said. “I thank all the GOA activists who spoke up in support of this bill.”



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Tuesday, February 12th
25580 views

South Dakota Constitutional Carry L

South Dakota Senate passed Senate Bill 47 by a 23 to 11 vote. Senate Bill 47 will get rid of the requirement to obtain a permit in order to lawfully carry a firearm for self-defense. In South Dakota, it is already legal to carry a firearm openly, as long as the individual is not constrained legally from possessing a firearm. Under current law, if a firearm becomes covered by a coat or if it is in a bag, they would need to possess a CCHL. This new legislation would provide the freedom to choose their preferred carry method.




This legislation would also keep in place the current permitting system so that people who obtain a permit could still enjoy the reciprocity agreements that South Dakota has with other states.



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Tuesday, February 12th
25518 views

Oklahoma Constitutional Carry Legis

In Oklahoma, Constitutional Carry Legislation is to be voted on this week. House Bill 2597 would recognize the right of law-abiding Oklahoma residents to Keep and Bear Arms for self-defense. Self-defense situations are essentially impossible to predict, therefore, law-abiding adults’ right to defend themselves in self defense situations should not be conditioned by government-mandated time delays and taxes.




On Wednesday, the Oklahoma House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on constitutional carry legislation, House Bill 2597. Please contact your state Representative and strongly urge them to SUPPORT House Bill 2597 when it comes up for a vote.



Read More Courtesy of NRA ILA...

Monday, February 11th
25823 views

New Oregon Gun Bill

In Oregon, SB 501 is being considered for legislation. The elements of the Bill would:




Raise the legal age to purchase guns to 21


Limit magazine capacity to five rounds


Require all guns to be locked


Limit the purchase of ammunition to 20 rounds a month


Gun owners have to report stolen guns within 24 hours


Require purchasers to obtain a permit from the local sheriff before being able to buy a gun ( To obtain the permit, you must be 21 years old, have no criminal convictions, have not violated a restraining or stalking order and provide proof of completing a firearms safety course)




Basically, this bill is looking to limit access to firearms and ammunition. There is no grandfather clause on magazines that hold more than five rounds. If passed, gun owners would have to turn in or destroy all magazines above the new limit. Essentially, this would eliminate the use of most semi-auto pistols and rifles, and the sale of 50-round boxes of ammunition. Thankfully, this bill has little chance of passing as written. In fact, it may not even be constitutional. Several legislators have already come out against it.




A new Oregon gun bill would give the Beaver State the strictest gun laws in the nation, if passed. This bill is one of more than a dozen gun bills to be considered by the Oregon legislature. Rep. Andrea Salinas and Sen. Rob Wagner submitted the bill on behalf of Students for Change.



Read More Courtesy of Personal Defense World...

Wednesday, February 6th
27317 views

Gun Control Updates

There are some new gun control laws being considered in California, New York, and Michigan. Here's the breakdown:




In California, Democratic Assemblyman Marc Levine is proposing taxation on all semi-automatic firearms. This proposal came in response to the Thousand Oaks shooting and is said to help reduce the number of gun deaths. The revenue from the taxation would be directed to gun violence prevention programs, specifically the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Program. It’s not sure what the taxation rate would be on semi-automatics, but it would likely be around $25 or so per firearm.




The city of Detroit, Michigan is introducing a mental health background check. They have also submitted a limit on the amount of ammunition that can be purchased at once. This legislation was passed by a unanimous voice vote by city lawmakers a few weeks earlier, though it has yet to become official law.




New York has several bills that are being considered including: a Bump Stock Ban, a Waiting Period, a Red Flag Bill, and a Social Media Probe. Possession of bump stocks is looking to be entirely banned; The waiting period to receive a firearm after purchasing one is to be extended from three to ten days; a bill would allow family members, law enforcement officers, and school officials to get a court order to block someone from possessing a firearm within the state; and another bill that would require people seeking to buy a handgun to give up their internet search history and social media passwords to the state for review before they can buy a handgun.




Many of the new pieces of legislation being considered by lawmakers in different states are related to restricting gun laws.Specifically, there are new gun control laws being considered in three states: California, New York, and Michigan.



Read More Courtesy of Gun News Daily...

Wednesday, September 12th
62575 views

California Handgun Signs Law

A California law prohibited licensed gun dealers from displaying handgun-related signs or advertising. However, words relating to guns or pictures of shotguns or rifles were permitted. A lawsuit was filed in 2014- Tracy Rifle and Pistol v. Becerra-and has finally come to a verdict this month. The ruling concluded that the ban is unconstitutional and violates First Amendment rights. “The bottom line is that a state cannot legislate political correctness at the expense of a fundamental, constitutionally-enumerated right", said SAF vice president Alan M. Gottlieb.




California Penal Code section 26820, first enacted in 1923, banned gun stores from putting up signs advertising the sale of handguns — but not shotguns or rifles. “But,” the court held today, quoting from the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s landmark Second Amendment 2008 opinion in D.C. v. Heller, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Friday, August 31st
65386 views

New California Bills

Four new bills were approved this week in the state of California.


The first will expand who can file for one of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Orders. It adds coworkers, employers, and school employees to the list that already included family members and police.


The second would prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition at Cow Palace. This venue is state owned , located in Daly City, and has been used to host gun shows throughout the years.


The third would raise firearm purchasing age from 18 up to 21.


The last bill aims to ration all firearm purchases to one every 30 days.




A series of four anti-gun bills were approved late this week and are heading to Gov. Jerry Brown for signature. The measures — Assembly Bill 2888 and Senate Bills 221, 1100, and 1177 — passed the state legislature and now head to the state’s Democratic governor for further consideration.



Read More Courtesy of Guns...

Wednesday, August 22nd
67512 views

NRA wins WA Lawsuit

The NRA filed a Lawsuit and won, stopping I-1639 from appearing on Washington Ballots. The bill did not comply with state law, the font size was too small and didn't include strikethroughs. This bill would have done the following:




Create a gun registry for any transfers of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles.




Introduce a 10-business day waiting period on the purchase of semi-automatic rifles.




Impose criminal liability on otherwise law-abiding gun owners who fail to store their firearms to state standards.




Increase the age limit to possess or purchase semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21.




Mandates training prior to purchase, And authorizes a $25 fee to be assessed to semiautomatic rifle purchasers.




The Thurston County Superior Court today ruled in favor of the National Rifle Association and ordered a writ of mandamus to prevent I-1639 from appearing on the ballot. The judge agreed the signature sheets did not comply with state law – the font size was too small to be readable and didn't include strikethroughs.



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, August 22nd
67272 views

California Gun Legislation

California has passed a few new Bills affecting Gun Rights including:




AB 2103 -Adds new requirements for CCW carry licenses.




AB 1968 – Enacts new lifetime firearm prohibition to persons who have been admitted to a mental health facility under certain conditions more than once in a 1-year period.




AB 2222–Extends a reporting requirement concerning stolen, lost, found, recovered firearms to all law enforcement agencies.




AB 2888– Expands categories of persons who can petition for a “Gun Violence Restraining Order” (GVRO) to employers, coworkers, and some school employees. For more information on Bills Passed and Declined, visit the link below.




Firearms Policy Coalition reported that the California Legislature’s respective Senate and Assembly Appropriations committees acted on a number of bills that would affect California gun owners, visitors, and new residents.



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, June 20th
82382 views

Bump stocks outlawed in Delaware

Bump stocks are now banned in Delaware. Buying, possessing or selling a bump stock or trigger crank is now a crime punishable to up to 5 years in prison.




The bump stock bill, HB 300, passed the General Assembly after strong bipartisan support with only two votes cast against it, earning Carney’s signature within hours of its approval by the state House. The new law makes it a crime to buy, possess or sell a bump stock or trigger crank in the state with violators subject to a punishment of as much as 5 years in prison.



Read More Courtesy of Guns...

Wednesday, June 20th
82628 views

New Jersey zoning prohibits Gun sho

Piscataway, New Jersey has passed a new zoning law that prohibits Gun sales within 1,000 feet of just about all public places, including Medical Facilities, Churches, and Colleges/schools.




The zoning change forbids retail sales from within 1,000 feet of bars, college campuses, daycares, medical facilities, parks, places of worship, schools and the like. Piscataway leaders say it is the first of its kind in the state and will help keep the city of 56,000 residents safer, although New Jersey banned “assault weapons” in 1990, and has incrementally expanded the ban over the past three decades.



Read More Courtesy of Guns...

Tuesday, June 19th
82902 views

California bill to track gun parts

Measure AB 2383 will track all gun parts sold in California through licensing, reporting and background checks.




Gipson’s bill would require those who sell many common gun parts but do not currently have a federal firearms license to acquire a proposed Firearm Precursor Parts vendor license. The license would be needed for those who sell firearms barrels, magazines, speed loaders, unfinished frames, receivers and side plates; finished upper receivers or slides, as well as trigger packs or fire control groups. Vendors would have to meet undefined California Department of Justice requirements but could only sell such parts to individuals who pass a background check administered by DOJ– for which a $1 fee would be charged for each part. This is to help offset the estimated $6 million needed to set up the licensing and regulation.



Read More Courtesy of Guns...

Thursday, May 31st
87087 views

Ohio Self Defense Reform

Ohio bill HB 228 is likely to pass and become law. This will give the prosecution rather than the defender the responsibility of proving self defense in cases.




The Ohio legislature is looking to reform Ohio law on self-defense. Currently, Ohio appears to be the only state where the burden of proof in a self-defense case rests with the defender. When a person claims self-defense in Ohio, the defender has to prove that they acted in self-defense. In nearly every other state, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. They have to prove that the defender did *not* act in self defense.



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Monday, April 23rd
96734 views

Deerfield Lawsuit Challenges Gun Ba

In june, an 'assault weapons' and large capacity magazine ban in Deerfield Illinois will be enforced. The Second Amendment Foundation and a private citizen are both filing lawsuits against the town of Deerfield.




The Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit against the Chicago suburb of Deerfield, Illinois seeking an injunction against enforcement of the ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines” adopted by the Village Board of Trustees earlier last week



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Tuesday, April 3rd
101401 views

ATF Bump Stock Rule

If this rule goes through, bump stocks will be completely banned and classified as machine guns. There will be no grandfathered items, and they would have to be turned in to the police or destroyed, or face a $10,000 fine and/or 10 years in jail.




The bump stock rule is now written and comments from citizens can be submitted.



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Thursday, March 29th
102801 views

California Bill To Stop 2nd Amendme

Los Angeles Assemblyman Chris Holden (D-Pasadena) has introduced a bill outlawing any organization from raffling #firearms .




AB 3199 would prohibit an authorized raffle conducted by eligible organizations (which Gun Owners of California and many like-minded groups are) from offering a firearm as a “prize.”



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Thursday, March 29th
102422 views

Oregon Gun Control Ballot

Initiative Petition 43 introduced in Oregon will ban most semiautomatic rifles and pistols. It will also classify any rifle less than 30 inches or any gun able to receive a #magazine holding more than 10 rounds as #assaultweapons .




What Initiative Petition 43 would do is ban most semiautomatic rifles and nearly all pistols. The initiative states any rifle capable of accepting a magazine and one of the other cosmetic features listed in the initiative would be banned and labeled an “assault weapon.” Also, if the rifle is less than 30 inches, it would be considered an “assault weapon.”



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Monday, March 26th
103175 views

Assault Weapons Ban Introduced in D

An assault weapons ban has been introduced to the Delaware senate. This bill would ban 60 specific makes and models of firearms.




Townsend based the bill on the infamous Maryland Firearm Safety Act of 2013 (“FSA”) which banned most modern sporting rifles. Maryland Democrats used the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut to push the bill through their legislator. It appears that the anti-gun politicians in Delaware are using the Parkland Florida shooting as an excuse to introduce the bill and push it through.



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Monday, March 26th
103224 views

Iowa right to keep and bear arms

Iowa is one of very few states that does not include the right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution. This will be on the ballot for #Iowa voters in 2020.




On March 19th, the Iowa state House of Representatives passed House Joint Resolution 2009 by a vote of 54-42 to propose an amendment to the state Constitution affirming and recognizing the right of Iowans’ to keep and bear arms as a fundamental individual right.



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Thursday, March 22nd
104234 views

Citigroup controlling gun purchases

Citigroup is going to start controlling sales of guns and gun related items to people under the age of 21. They legally do have the right to do this and regulate their services, but many are asking whether they should.




Citigroup plans on regulating firearms through controlling sales to persons under the age of 21, bump stocks, and “high-capacity magazines” according to an internal memo that was sent to Firearm Rack by an anonymous source.



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Friday, March 23rd
105270 views

Gun Control in the Florida Constitu

Florida is looking to possibly add some gun control to their constitution, including:as assault weapons ban;aban on any semi-automatic rifle that has a detachable magezine; A ban on the sale or transfer of assault weapons; a 10 day waiting period; and A ban on the purchase of any firearm by a person under 21 years of age.




Some of the members of the Florida Constitution Revision Commission (CRC) are very anti-gun and they are proposing and pushing gun ban and gun control amendments be put in the Florida Constitution.



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Tuesday, March 20th
104585 views

Wyoming stand your ground law

Republican Gov. Matt Mead chose not to veto a measure expanding protections in cases where defensive force may be used and allowed the bill to become law without his signature. Mead, a former federal prosecutor who has stumped to bring gun industry to the state, stood aside on HB 168, a popular bill that widens areas where no duty to retreat exists and provides immunity from civil liability in aftermath of a reasonable use of force. While the proposal’s sponsor welcomed the move, Mead said in a statement he did not feel the change was needed.



Read More Courtesy of Guns...

Friday, March 16th
105718 views

Marjory Stoneman Douglas High Schoo

Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley will soon introduce a bill dedicated to the Florida School Shooting Tragedy. The bill will increase funding to the Secret Service, to be used for research into how tragedies like this one, particularly school violence, can be prevented. People seem to be quite divided around this issue and what needs to be done to stop it from happening again. So hopefully they will use this extra money wisely and come up with a solution that works!




Republican Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley said Wednesday he will soon introduce a bill designed to help prevent another school shooting like the massacre in Parkland, Florida last month. As such, the forthcoming bill — entitled the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Memorial Act of 2018 — provides additional funding to the Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center as it continues its groundbreaking research into school violence prevention.



Read More Courtesy of Guns...

Friday, March 16th
105632 views

Armed school staff map

With all of the debate going on surrounding the Florida School shooting, it is helpful to know what your states gun laws are. There's a lot of clashing over whether teachers or school staff should have the choice to be armed, so here's a map that tells you whether or not that is legal in your state! {img}




Which states allow school staff to be armed? The answer changes day to day. The recent murders in Florida left many of us wondering if we could do something to help protect our students. Many states allow armed staff in schools. Once the first school district in a state establishes such a program, then other districts often follow their lead. Other early adopters have moved forward and taken lessons from other states with long standing first responder programs. The states marked in green have at least one program approved by a school board or authorizing body. When we look at the map, most of us could put a program in place. We could protect our schools and our students today.



Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, March 14th
105648 views

Minnesota Magazine Ban

We've been made aware that a group of #AntiGun DFL Senators have been meeting secretly over the past few weeks and devising a comprehensive #guncontrol strategy that they will begin unveiling over the coming days. They had planned to unveil their strategy at a press conference on Monday, March 19th.



But we're going to show you their strategy in this e-mail – and then we want you to TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION. Most interestingly, they've been doing this deliberately without the involvement of the two anti-gun groups in Minnesota: Protect Minnesota and Michael Bloomberg's Everytown / Moms Demand Action organization.




The first part of their strategy is Senator Dibble's Magazine Ban Bill – SF 3331, which was just introduced on the Minnesota Senate Floor. Here's what's in it: It defines a “large capacity magazine” as a magazine that holds more than ten rounds – or any combination of parts from which such a magazine can be made. If you manufacture one or possess it or the parts to make one after August 1st, 2018, you'll be guilty of a felony, owe a $25,000 fine, and serve up to 5 years in prison.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, March 14th
105962 views

Florida Republicans Pass Gun Contro

True #Republicans , true believers in the Constitution, true believers in protecting the #Freedom for which our Founding Fathers fought and died, stood strong and voted against the #guncontrol bill.



But too many Republicans put their political futures ahead of the Constitution and the Second Amendment and voted for gun control. Republican Senators, House members and even Governor Rick Scott showed us that when their personal interest is at stake, they won’t keep their word. They put their hands on a Bible and swore to support, defend and protect the Constitution. Then voted for gun control.




When Governor Scott signed SB-7026 into law, he violated the Second Amendment rights of young adults between the ages of 18-21. He could have stopped it. He could have forced the legislature to do the right thing and work on a true school safety bill, but he caved and opted for gun control. That’s why NRA filed a lawsuit against the State of Florida The Governor’s signing of that bill was so orchestrated and calculated that when the bill was signed, FDLE quickly shut down the background check system for hours – with no prior notice to dealers at all. When the system came back on line, an 18-21 year old could not purchase or take possession of any firearm.




Those 18-21 year olds who were in the process of purchasing rifles or shotguns had their purchases or transfers denied. Now, if they have rifles or shotguns ordered or on lay-a-way, when their guns come in, they will not be able to take possession of them. They will lose their guns and their probably their money. In addition to having their Second Amendment rights violated they have been damaged financially by government action. The bill also imposes a 3-day waiting period between the purchase and delivery of rifles and shotguns and bans possession of bump stocks.




The bill defines “bump fire stock” as a conversion kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device used to alter the rate of fire of a firearm to mimic automatic weapon fire or which is used to increase the rate of fire to a faster rate than is possible for a person to fire such semiautomatic firearm unassisted by a kit, a tool, an accessory, or a device. Although the bill took effect immediately, the bump stock ban doesn’t take effect until October 1, 2018.




Every legislator who voted for this bill, violated their sworn oath to “support, protect, and defend the Constitution.” These gun control provisions do nothing to enhance school safety but merely serve to punish law-abiding citizens for the actions of a mentally ill teenager and the failures of government officials who refused to do their jobs.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Tuesday, March 13th
106254 views

Rights Of Non-Violent Felons

Today, the #Tennessee Senate Judiciary committee unanimously approved a bill (SB2528 by Ketron and HB2254 by Sargent) which will and is intended specifically to take #rights away from nonviolent #felons who have already served their time and completed their punishment. The question is why?



Prior to 2007, nonviolent felons, perhaps someone who wrote a bad check and later made restitution, could get their “full rights of citizenship” restored under state law once they had completed their sentence or terms of probation. As a result of a change in the law in 2008, which it appears the sponsors did not even fully understand, nonviolent felons cannot possess a handgun. However, because of federal law, the fact that Tennessee restricts any right to own any firearm federal law “bootstraps” and prohibits the person from owning any firearm.




In addition, the 2008 Legislative change appears to have been oblivious to a prior Tennessee Supreme Court decision which essentially held that even a court order restoring the “full rights of citizenship” to a person with a felony conviction does not restore the right to possess a firearm.
Nevertheless, TCA 39-17-1308(b) has provided that the defenses to illegal carrying of a firearm were not available to those with violent felonies or felony drug offense. By omitting non-violent felons, the statute appeared to make way for a nonviolent felon, with a court ordered restoration to be able to have access to firearms. This possibility was confirmed by the Tennessee Attorney General in a formal opinion in 2015. This year, however, it seems that the Legislature is rushing to pass a new bill which will have the effect to permanently prohibiting nonviolent felons from ever getting back the ability to exercise a constitutionally protected right. Again, the question is why?




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Monday, March 12th
106463 views

Open and Concealed Carry

The natural right to #beararms includes the right to carry them concealed as well as openly. Both types of carry were practiced at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Flintlock “muff pistols” were widely available before 1791. Daggers, dirks and other assorted blades were commonly carried concealed. Sword canes conceal the blade inside of the cane, and are considered concealed weapons. They were commonly available. They became popular, in part, to avoid any social reproach against the carry of swords, anticipating the condemnation of open carry today.



The Second Amendment does not differentiate between concealed and openly carried arms. Such differentiation was not discussed during the debates about the Second Amendment. It was decades after the Bill of Rights was ratified that concealed carry was questioned. Arms technology had not changed significantly. Concealed weapons had and have military purposes. General Gage, the British Officer in charge of occupied Boston, had his officers conceal their sidearms when patrolling to prevent Paul Revere's ride.




And finally, unbeknown to him. Gage had that afternoon posted mounted officers, with their sidearms concealed as though they were on pleasure jaunts, along the Cambridge roads, just in case messengers should try to give out alarms that night. There were no colonial statutes that separated the carrying of concealed weapons from the open carrying of weapons. The Kentucky legislature passed a statute forbidding concealed arms in 1813. It was challenged in court.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Monday, March 12th
106578 views

SAF & ISRA Sue Housing Authority

The #SecondAmendment Foundation and Illinois State Rifle Association have filed a lawsuit in federal district court challenging the East St. Louis Housing Authority’s ban on firearms possession by residents of government subsidized housing in that community.



The lawsuit was filed on behalf of an “N. Doe” resident who wishes to protect her identity, because she is, according to the lawsuit, “hiding from a violent domestic abuser.” Plaintiffs are represented by Glen Ellyn attorney David Sigale, who has worked with both organizations in the past. They are asking for an injunction against enforcement of the no-guns rule at Auburn Terrace, a public housing facility.




“This isn’t the first time we’ve had to challenge such a regulation,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It is simply unacceptable for citizens living in public housing to be denied their basic right to have a firearm for personal protection, and in this case, it is unconscionable.” The complaint alleges that the plaintiff’s rights are being violated under the Second and Fourteenth amendments due to a requirement that no firearms be possessed on the Auburn Terrace property as a condition of lease.




“This situation is made even more outrageous considering what has happened to Ms. Doe while living at Auburn Terrace,” Gottlieb noted, referring to the lawsuit document. “We’ve explained how she was beaten and raped in January 2017, and her children stopped the attack only by threatening to use a gun. On two other occasions, Ms. Doe had to call police due to shootings in nearby residences. When the housing authority threatened to terminate her lease due to the gun in her residence, they insisted that the building is safe, so she doesn’t need a gun.”




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Monday, March 12th
106946 views

NRA LawSuit Challenging Florida Gun

The National Rifle Association today announced that it has filed a lawsuit challenging the State of #Florida ’s newly-enacted ban on the purchase of #firearms by young adults between the ages of 18-21.



Florida’s ban is an affront to the Second Amendment, as it totally eviscerates the right of law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 21 to keep and bear arms.
The ban is particularly offensive with respect to young women, as women between the ages of 18 and 21 are much less likely to engage in violent crime than older members of the general population who are unaffected by the ban. Despite this fact, the State of Florida has enacted a sweeping law banning all young adults between the ages of 18 and 21 from purchasing any firearm from any source.




Chris Cox, the Executive Director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, stated, “Swift action is needed to prevent young adults in Florida from being treated as second-class citizens when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms. We are confident that the courts will vindicate our view that Florida’s ban is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment.” The case is National Rifle Association of America, Inc. v. Bondi, and it has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Monday, March 12th
106390 views

Expansive gun Ban

Contact your members of Congress and state lawmakers today and ask them to oppose all #guncontrol schemes that would only impact law-abiding #gunowners . Any firearm #magazine that has a capacity of more than 10 rounds, or that can be “changed” to accept more than 10 rounds, would also be banned.



How some models or features made the cut and others didn’t is a mystery to anyone with the most elementary knowledge of firearms technology. Clearly, however, two of America’s most popular defensive firearms – the AR-15 and the Glock 17 – would be prohibited under the Act. The former is banned by name (“[a]ll AR types”) and the latter as a “semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm” (i.e., the Glock 18). That alone puts the bill at odds with existing Supreme Court precedent, which makes clear the Second Amendment protects the sorts of firearms in common use for lawful purposes.




So what wouldn’t be banned? Well, the Cabanas Phaser Rifle would still theoretically be available, as would the Russian made TOZ Model H–170. Yet it’s cold comfort to one who loses his horse to be told he can have a unicorn. Other exempted firearms are more common, but the emphasis – again clearly contrary to Supreme Court precedent – is on models used for hunting, competition, or recreation, rather than for personal defense.




People who have the banned firearms could keep them, but they could only be transferred or loaned to others through an FFL. Firearms borrowed at a range would have to be “kept within the premises of the … facility” at “all times,” perhaps suggesting that the only guns that could be used by multiple people at a range would have to belong to the facility itself and be kept on site.




Bans of this sort are among the gun control lobby’s most ambitious efforts, but even staunch gun control advocates admit they are the least likely to materially contribute to public safety. The logic of gun control, however, demands that the innocent must be punished for crimes they didn’t commit. And you can be sure that as expansive as H.R. 5087 is, its proponents see it only as a “good step in the right direction” on a road that inexorably leads to the end of your right to armed self-defense.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Thursday, March 8th
107635 views

Oregon Age Discrimination Suit

The case against #Dick's Sporting Goods — which raises the claim discussed here last week — is Watson v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., just filed yesterday in Jackson County ( #Oregon ) Circuit Court; the Oregonian (Aimee Green)reports that the same plaintiff also filed a lawsuit against Walmart.



Oregon is one of the states that bans retailers from discriminating based on age against customers age 18 and above. The Oregon statute says it generally applies to any person who is “of age,” which appears to mean 18, the age of majority in Oregon, at least for those products that are legal to sell to 18-to-20-year-olds (as long guns are in Oregon). Indeed, the statute specifically mentions alcohol and marijuana sellers for special treatment, but makes no such special provision for gun sellers.




659A.403 Discrimination in place of public accommodation prohibited. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.




(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not prohibit: (a) The enforcement of laws governing the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors and the frequenting by minors of places of public accommodation where alcoholic beverages are served; (b) The enforcement of laws governing the use of marijuana items … by persons under 21 years of age and the frequenting by persons under 21 years of age of places of public accommodation where marijuana items are sold; or (c) The offering of special rates or services to persons 50 years of age or older. (3) It is an unlawful practice for any person to deny full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation in violation of this section….




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, March 7th
1291 views

Thursday, March 8th
107744 views

Oregon Legislature Adjourns Sine Di

On Saturday, March 3rd, the #Oregon Legislature adjourned sine die from its 2018 Legislative Session. Regretfully, one bill infringing upon your #SecondAmendment rights in Oregon passed the legislature and was signed by Governor Kate Brown on March 5th.

House Bill 4145 expands the class of persons in Oregon that could be prohibited from possessing firearms. This legislation changes existing law so that a broader definition of “family and household members” would be applied to firearm prohibitions for certain misdemeanor offenses and protective orders. In addition, the legislation adds the misdemeanor of stalking to the list of offenses that would result in the removal of Second Amendment rights. The misdemeanor offense of stalking under Oregon statute requires no finding that the individual is a credible threat, and furthermore, requires no use of force or even attempted use of force. Oregon defines this offense to include alarming another individual through unwanted contact.

Thanks to the active involvement of members and Second Amendment supporters, anti-gun Senate Joint Memorial 202 failed to pass. This resolution would have urged the United States Congress to regulate trigger modification devices in the same manner as fully automatic firearms and to define and regulate firearm components and kits. Thank you to those NRA members and Second Amendment supporters who contacted their legislators this session, and also to all of the legislators that stood strong on protecting Second Amendment rights in Oregon. Your NRA-ILA will be back at the Capitol for the 2019 session, and in the meantime, please stay tuned to your email inbox and www.nraila.org for further updates.

Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Thursday, March 8th
107741 views

American Suppressor Association Leg

On Tuesday, January 9, 2018, the #California Senate Public Safety Committee heard S.B. 710, a bill seeking to legalize #suppressor ownership and hunting in California. Unfortunately, even after informative testimony by the American Suppressor Association, the committee failed to pass the bill in a 3-2-2 vote with two republicans and one democrat voting in favor of the bill. Two democrats voted against, and two abstained.



The American Suppressor Association is working on language for a new, slightly modified bill in California for the current legislative session and continuing our process of education and advocacy on behalf of gun owners in California.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Thursday, March 8th
107969 views

New Jersey Gun Owner Rally

A #gunowner #rally sponsored by Association of #NewJersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs and #NRA is scheduled to be held in Trenton on Monday, March 26 2018 — the same day that both houses of the legislature are scheduled to be in full session, and very likely voting on the first wave of gun bills that emerge from committees in the next few weeks.



Please join us for a morning rally close to the State House, followed by a march to the Senate and Assembly chambers where we will pack the galleries and make sure legislators know we are watching as they vote. Plan on spending the entire day. Additional details will be forthcoming, but save the date!




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, March 7th
108364 views

Florida Senate to take Up Gun Contr

Tomorrow, March 1, 2018, the #Florida Senate will take up SB-7026, a bill that punishes #gunowners . Senators are being bullied into voting for gratuitous #guncontrol measures in order to be able to vote on school safety.



Senate leadership is trying to force Senators to vote for gun control if they want to vote to harden schools, to put armed security in schools and to keep guns out of the hands of dangerously mentally ill people.




These are the Gun Control measures contained in the Senate bill: 1. Makes it a felony for any person under 21 to purchase any firearm either privately or from a dealer. Exemption for active duty military & law enforcement only; 2. Minimum 3-Day Waiting Period on ALL FIREARMS. Exempts CW license holders and persons who have completed the Florida FWC Hunter Safety course; 3. Every year it confiscates 10% of the license fees paid by CW license holders to pay for the care of victims of mass shootings; 4. Bans the sale and transfer of Bump Stocks.




Please EMAIL members of the Florida Senate IMMEDIATELY and tell them to VOTE NO ON GUN CONTROL. Urge them to provide armed security in schools and tighten mental health laws to keep guns out of the hands of those who are a danger to themselves or others BUT LEAVE THE RIGHTS OF LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS ALONE.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Thursday, March 8th
107919 views

6 of 7 Anti-Gun Bills Pass in NJ

Six of the seven #antigun bills up in the Assembly Judiciary Committee were passed this afternoon, after a heated hearing in a jam-packed room that could not hold the hundreds who showed up (they were directed to an overflow room).



The media was also out in unprecedented numbers at the hearing. The smart gun bill (A1016) was held by the committee and not voted on. Several hundred gun owners attended, many of whom testified passionately against the measures, along with gun rights leaders. Anti-gun organizations and activists were also out in force. The legislation could move to Senate committee as soon as next week. Please watch for further updates and alerts.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, March 7th
108150 views

Wyoming Stand Your Ground Law

Things are moving so fast in Cheyenne, it’s hard to put out emails fast enough! As we told you Tuesday night, the Senate took a sledgehammer to our Stand-Your-Ground law with a massive strike-after amendment that gutted key components of the bill.



However, after your calls and emails demanding that they fix the bill, I’m happy to report that the Senate fixed much of the damage they did the day before!
The Senate then passed their Stand-Your-Ground bill (S.F. 71) through the Senate for the third and final time. In the House, our bill there (H.B. 168) passed through today for the third and final time. Even better, it did so with no weakening amendments! I can tell you that WYGO staff who are working the legislature are hearing from dozens of lawmakers about the number of calls and emails they are receiving from WYGO members!




Thank you so much for your activism — everyone here in the Capitol is hearing from you and talking about it! From here, the process gets a little bit confusing. Each chamber has passed a version of Stand-Your-Ground law. Now the opposite chamber needs to take up the other chamber’s version of Stand-Your-Ground law and pass it for this process to be over. In other words, the House needs to pass the Senate’s version or the Senate needs to pass the House’s version — and it has to happen by the end of the day Monday!




In the coming days, we’re going to have action steps that we need you to take to make sure that your lawmakers know what you want them to do. For today, I hope you’ll consider joining Wyoming Gun Owners as a member if you haven’t already done so. I’ll be blunt: we need your help. We have been mobilizing people using targeted social media, radio ads, direct mail, not to mention having our membership coordinator speaking to groups all over the state. Our policy advisor has been working the scene in Cheyenne almost every day this session, for 8-12 hours a day. We’re using every tool in our disposal to maintain the pressure in the Capitol, but we’re running low on funds to keep this going.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Tuesday, March 6th
107829 views

Florida County Restores Second Amen

The Lake County Commission in #Florida unanimously voted to restore some #SecondAmendment rights to county employees. The vote took place on Tuesday, 27 February 2018. Commissioner Josh Blake said the commission had been working on the measure for months.



From dailycommercial.com: TAVARES — The Lake County Commission voted unanimously on Tuesday to allow county employees with concealed weapon permits to carry their guns while on the job. Commissioner Josh Blake asked fellow commissioners to consider doing away with the county’s employee policy that prohibits the possession of weapons while on the job. Commissioner Wendy Breeden was hesitant but joined fellow commissioners in the unanimous decision to change the policy.




“I personally believe that the natural right to defend your life does not disappear into thin air when you leave your house in the morning when you go to work. I think that is something we have control over, which we do. It’s our employee handbook. I do think it’s a reasonable thing to allow employees to utilize that right and have the right to self-defense while they are on the job,” Blake said. The change takes effect immediately and applies to those who have permits. It is illegal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.




The change removes the prohibition imposed on County employees by the county. County employees will now be able to carry in the same places the general public can. Commissioner Blake said that other Florida counties do not have a policy on their employees carrying defensive weapons. In the United States, anything that is not illegal is allowed. This is the opposite of the totalitarian model, where everything that is not allowed is forbidden.




Lake County is following a growing trend around the United States. As the Progressive Project grew from the 1900's on, more and more government units started forbidding their employees from exercising their Second Amendment rights while at work, using work rules as the vehicle of enforcement. The laws were often ignored. I recall my father taking a long barreled .38 Colt to work on a Wisconsin Highway Department survey crew. Once, he shot off the head of a ruffed grouse at some distance, astounding all involved.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Tuesday, March 6th
107786 views

Extend Second Amendment Rights to P

In the trend to restore #SecondAmendment rights across the United States, 22 states have created statutes to protect the right to have arms inside personal means of transportation. On 27 February, a bill in #WestVirginia passed the House by an overwhelming majority of 85-14.

Here is the Summary From HB 4187: The purpose of this bill is to create the “Business Liability Protection Act”. The bill includes the right to limit possession of firearms on certain premises and definitions. It also provides for misdemeanor criminal offense and penalty. It prohibits employers from certain specific actions against a person when that person possesses a firearm legally, including a condition of employment. The bill provides a duty of care of public and private employers and provides for immunity from liability. The bill authorizes the Attorney General to enforce this statute, including the right to sue or seek injunctive relief; and seek civil fines.

The purpose of this legislation is to find a trade off between the property rights of employers and the Second Amendment rights of employees. There are numerous restrictions on the property rights of employers already in place. The minor restrictions on employer rights seem small compared to the major restoration of Second Amendment rights. From usnews.com: “We have many people in this state who decide to carry because they want to protect themselves, and many times that involves carrying to work,” said Delegate Geoff Foster, a Winfield Republican and lead sponsor. “Many of the people in this state have been prevented from carrying to work, essentially being disarmed throughout the course of the day, because they can't have the gun locked in their vehicle.”

Critics said it would make workplaces more dangerous and West Virginia less attractive to companies that want to control their premises. “We will be less competitive if we don't allow those people to provide for a safe workplace and protect the public around them,” said Delegate John Shott, a Bluefield Republican. He said 22 other states have some version of this law, but with some limits on where it applies, such as at chemical factories and oil and gas refineries in Texas.

Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Monday, March 5th
108072 views

South Dakota Pro Gun Legislation

The #SouthDakota Senate passed House Bill 1271 by a 28-6 vote. This important #selfdefense #legislation will now head to the desk of Governor Dennis Daugaard for his signature.



House Bill 1271 would allow individuals to carry a firearm for self-defense on the premises of any nonpublic school, church or house of worship, or a nonpublic school that is located on the premises of a church or other house of worship. On Monday, the South Dakota Senate is scheduled to consider pro-gun legislation, House Bill 1209. Please contact Governor Daugaard in support of HB 1271, as well as your state Senator in support of House Bill 1209 when it comes up for a vote.




House Bill 1209 seeks to require that applicants for a South Dakota concealed carry license undergo a background check through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This update would make consistent all three classes of concealed carry permits in South Dakota. Again, please contact Governor Daugaard in support of HB 1271, as well as your state Senator in support of House Bill 1209 when it comes up for a vote.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Monday, March 5th
108184 views

Massie Proposes Repeal of Gun Free

Congressman Thomas Massie has proposed repealing the controversial federal ban on #guns within a thousand feet of a school. Massie said the solution to #schoolshootings is putting more than one-armed guard at school or allowing teachers to be armed, adding that “98 percent of mass public shootings happen in a #gunfreezone .”



“And we’ve labeled all of our schools as gun free zones. We need to take those labels off, and put our kids in that two percent category of being safe, instead of being in that 98 percent vulnerable category,” he said. Massie said his bill, the Safe Students Act (H.R. 34), has the support of Columbine survivor Evan Todd. Congressman Massie (R-KY) is right about an important fact. School shootings increased after federal gun bans were passed.




The 1990 Gun Free School Zone Act (GFSZA) was a ban on guns within a thousand feet of school. It effectively banned the carry of guns in most cities and towns. The 1996 GFSZA act included a minor change that exempted people with concealed carry permits. The 1994 Gun Free School act gave incentives for schools to ban guns inside the schools. What caused the increase in mass murder in schools? There are two likely possibilities . . .




The gun bans make the schools inviting targets. Potential mass murderers know that they can kill more people without armed opposition. The number they kill is important, because they want fame. The second factor is the copycat effect. Fame gives societal misfits a pseudo-immortality in celebrity. Celebrity is valued about all other things in our popular culture. Potential mass murderers who are unhinged, poorly integrated into society, and considering suicide, see an option to leave the life they hate while achieving celebrity status.




The media loved the restrictions. The establishment media use school shootings to push for more gun bans, restrictions on gun ownership and use. The media give coverage to school shootings all out of proportion to the number of people killed. The coverage gives future mass murderers incentive to kill large numbers of people and “break the record”. Congressman Massie is working to bring to the debate a factor ignored by the elite media for decades. School shootings shot up after the federal gun bans were passed, not before they took effect.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Thursday, March 1st
109223 views

Utah Proposing Gun Control

Your #gunrights are now in peril at the national level as never before. The problem this time is not the Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic Party, it is the supposedly #progun wing of the Republican Party.



Formerly solid pro-gun elected officials are crumbling under the pressure of CNN and the New York Times. On Friday, Republican Governor Rick Scott of Florida, a former pro-Second Amendment supporter, NRA member and speaker at the last NRA convention, has just proposed a rash of California-style gun control measures including waiting periods, and stripping young adults of their Second Amendment rights by prohibiting them from purchasing ANY guns. Here in Utah, half of our congressional representatives are now considering some type of gun control.




Not only are these proposals detrimental to your rights, they also will do nothing to make schools safer, and they distract from real solutions to school violence. The threat is very real this time. This is not just going to blow over like other times. We need to deal with the problem right here in our own backyard starting with Representatives Curtis and Love. We need you to contact both Representatives Curtis and Love and to spread the word on social media for others to make their voices heard.




Going back to at least the early 1990’s, Utah's Congressional delegation, both Democrat and Republican, have opposed gun control. Not anymore. Now Representative Mia Love (R) has stated that she is considering prohibiting young adults aged 18 to 20 from buying modern sporting weapons such as the AR-15, and Representative John Curtis (R) is calling for some sort of ban on unnamed devices.




Let’s start with the most egregious proposal. According to KUTV on February 22, in an interview with Brian Mullahy, Rep. Love was asked point blank if she would support a bill raising the minimum age to purchase an assault weapon (i.e. modern sporting rifle such as the AR-15) to 21. According to KUTV she responded “I would support it if it came in a comprehensive bill. Yeah, I would support it.”




The USSC has been in discussions with Representative Love's office and they have indicated to us that no decision has been reached on this issue. We also note that Representative Love's voting record on gun rights has been good in the past. She voted for National Concealed Carry Reciprocity. Because of this we believe she will listen to reason. This is why it is important that you contact Representative Love and ask her to oppose such a measure.




We see no point in prohibiting young adults from owning America’s most popular rifle simply because of its cosmetic appearance. Just last year Utah lowered the age to get a concealed carry permit to age 18. Young adults have the same rights to self-defense as anyone else and should be free to choose whatever defensive weapon they want. This proposal is all the more ridiculous when you consider that rifles only represent 3.5 percent of homicides nationwide, and modern sporting rifles such as the AR-15 are a subset of all rifles.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, February 28th
109267 views

GIANT Gun Grab

Assembly Bill 1217 is being fast tracked with 6 other bills to take away the remnants of any remaining #gunrights of #NewJersey citizens. This proposed law will allow your guns to be easily confiscated based on “grounds” so flimsy, they defy belief. The level of proof is only Probable Cause. Only one side (the plaintiff) is heard by the court. Any person can apply to have guns taken from another person.



The “grounds” cover a multitude of issues, but here are some of the most concerning: “…evidence of recent acquisition of firearms or other deadly weapons…” The mere recent purchase of a gun can be considered as “grounds” to seize your guns; “…any prior arrest of the person for a crime or offense…” Any “arrest”, not even a conviction, is required. “Offenses” arguably include traffic offenses. Get a speeding ticket and apparently it can be considered as “grounds” to seize your guns.; “… a recent threat.. directed toward others…” It does not require a criminal threat. Threaten to not shop at a certain store, and it can be considered as “grounds” to seize your guns; “… a recent threat.. directed toward yourself…” This also does not require a criminal threat. Threaten to hold your breath, and it can be considered “grounds” to seize your guns; “…the history of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force by the person against other persons…” Criminal or even unlawful physical force os not required. Playing football, having a history of playing football or threatening to play football, can be considered “grounds” to seize your guns; The court only has to be satisfied in an ex parte hearing, (Meaning the court only hears one side. The gun owner is not present. Only the person asking for the guns to be taken speaks to the court.) The court must find that the person poses a, “significant risk of personal injury to himself or others by possessing a firearm” based on the one-sided evidence presented.




In New Jersey one can bet that simply having a gun will be considered a “significant risk of personal injury.” The anti-2nd Amendment crowd has argued that for years. This bill is proof of the threat to our gun rights. We must fight it. A special session of the Assembly Judiciary Committee for Wednesday is scheduled for February 28 2018 to consider this and the other 6 Anti-2A bills.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, February 28th
109420 views

New Jersey Surprise Gun Legislation

FRIDAY NIGHT SURPRISE: At close of business last Friday, a special session of the Assembly Judiciary Committee for Wednesday, February 28 2018 to consider #antigun legislation was simultaneously scheduled and announced. The Assembly Judiciary Committee is scheduled to meet at 11:00 a.m. in Committee Room 11 on the 4th floor of the State House Annex on State Street in Trenton (note: the committee room could change).



The following bills are scheduled to be considered:A2761 Magazine Ban: Reduces maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds; A2759 Ammo Ban: Prohibits possession of ammunition capable of penetrating body armor; A2758 Kills Right to Carry: Codifies regulations defining justifiable need to carry handgun; A2757 Requires dealer background checks for private gun sales; A1016 Smart Guns: Establishes commission to approve smart guns; requires firearm retailers to sell smart guns; A1217 Authorizes gun violence restraining orders and firearm seizure warrants; A1181 Requires firearms seizure when health “professionals” think someone poses risk.




We will provide detailed analysis of these bills in a subsequent alert. In the meanwhile, please begin contacting members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee and tell them to vote no on these misguided proposals. Tell them that people intent on doing evil ignore hardware bans, and no one is made safer by them. Tell them that government's failure to protect the most vulnerable among us mandates that government instead focus on protecting and empowering potential victims rather than targeting the rights of the law-abiding. And tell them that Constitutional rights cannot be stripped by government without due process. Contact the members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee.




Please plan on emailing legislators again next week with additional talking points, and please plan on attending Wednesday's hearing in person. Please forward this email to every gun owner you know, and if you don't already receive alerts from ANJRPC, please subscribe to our free email alerts for the latest Second Amendment breaking news and action alerts.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, February 28th
109550 views

Trump will Write Out Bump Stocks

In a press conference today, President Donald #Trump said that, “I don’t care of Congress does it or not, I’m writing [so-called ‘ #bumpstocks ’] out myself.” In response to these troubling statements, constitutional rights advocacy organizations Firearms Policy Coalition ( #FPC ) and Firearms Policy Foundation ( #FPF ) have announced that they have retained attorneys Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut of the Pennsylvania-based Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., to submit their legal opposition to any rulemaking and begin preparing for litigation.



Last month, FPC submitted a legal letter of opposition to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ advanced noticed of proposed rulemaking on the “Application of the Definition of Machinegun to Bump Fire Stocks and Other Similar Devices.” In its comments, FPC explained that the “DOJ and BATFE clearly lack the statutory authority to re-define the targeted devices as ‘machineguns’,” and that these ATF-approved and legally-possessed devices could not be regulated firearms under the statutes. FPC and FPF oppose restrictions on the acquisition, possession, carry, transportation, and use of semi-automatic firearms, ammunition, and firearm parts and accessories by law-abiding people.




“We will use every resource and remedy available to us in our ongoing defense of the Constitution, the rights it protects, and millions of law-abiding American people” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “While we would prefer to block any executive action or rulemaking that would ban currently-legal firearms parts before it becomes law, we would not hesitate to file a federal lawsuit to protect the rights and legal personal property of gun owners if that’s what it takes.”




Those who wish to support FPC and FPF’s efforts to oppose executive branch gun control and support legal action a can make tax-deductible donation at www.defendgunparts.com. Individuals can become a member of FPC at www.firearmspolicy.org/join. Firearms Policy Coalition (www.firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, especially the fundamental, individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.




Firearms Policy Foundation (www.firearmsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 grassroots nonprofit organization. FPF’s mission is to defend the Constitution of the United States and the People’s rights, privileges and immunities deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, especially the inalienable, fundamental, and individual right to keep and bear arms. Firearms Industry Consulting Group (www.firearmsindustryconsultinggroup.com) represents individuals, organizations, firearms licensees, and others located across the United States in all matters relating to firearms and ATF compliance. FIGG is a division of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, February 28th
108753 views

New Hampshire Gun Ban

The entire Board of Directors of the #NewHampshire #Firearms Coalition is deeply saddened by the murders that occurred in Parkland, #Florida . However, we reject the concept that the acts of a criminal who violated Florida's gun free school zone law and then committed murder, in any way justify increased gun control on law abiding gun owners anywhere.



I know that we have been sending a lot of email, but we are working very hard to keep gun owners engaged with events that are happening in Concord. We don't send email just to send email; each message you receive from us will have an action item. Last week, in a sneak attack, reminiscent of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Senator Martha Hennessey, without warning offered a floor amendment to SB 357 that will create, for the first time ever, a New Hampshire law that will allow local school boards to ban guns. Senator Hennessy appeared to have caught many other senators off guard and the amendment was referred to the Senate Education Committee for “study”.




Senator Hennessey is blaming you, the law abiding gun owner for the acts of a murderer. She is attempting to curtail your civil right to be armed because of the criminal acts of a murderer. I find it hard to believe that someone who plans to commit murder will worry about a ban on gun possession in a school. It has recently been reported that an armed Broward County Florida Deputy Sheriff was at the scene of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, but instead of engaging the shooter and attempting to save lives, the coward, Deputy Sheriff Scot Peterson waited outside for at least 4 minutes while people were murdered.




And in case you haven't heard, his boss Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel is calling for new gun control, this call comes after his office failed to investigate reports that the alleged shooter was planning this attack and amid updated news reports that are now indicating other Broward Sheriff's deputies might have also displayed acts of cowardice instead of acts of heroism. Senator Hennessey seems to be answering that call and pushing gun control right here in New Hampshire.




But we don't need gun control in New Hampshire, we need to continue to allow legally armed adults to carry guns. That is a powerful deterrent. The good news is that legislators and local school boards are finally admitting that they do not have the authority to ban guns in schools. The bad news is that the anti-gun left will be working over the next week to convince Senators to support the Hennessey gun ban amendment which will not be considered by the Senate Education Committee before March 6, 2018.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Tuesday, February 27th
109579 views

Assault Weapons Ban

It is no secret that Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I) is no fan of #guns . After the #LasVegas #shooting , he introduced a bill to ban #bumpstocks. With another tragedy, he looks to gain political capital by proposing more overreaching gun bills that are doomed to fail in Congress. This tactic is what is known as the “political circus.”



The new bill, which is co-sponsored by 150 other Democrats, would introduce what Cicilline calls “sensible legislation.” He uses such buzz words as “weapons of war” and “assault weapons.” Looking into the bill it is anything, but “sensible.” “Assault weapons were made for one purpose,” a statement released by Cicilline said. “They are designed to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time. They do not belong in our communities.”




Rep. David Cicilline : With another tragedy, he looks to gain political capital by proposing more overreaching gun bills that are doomed to fail in Congress. The Assault Weapons Ban of 2018 (H.R.5087) does a lot more than just ban the modern sporting rifle. It would prohibit most firearms used today. Reading through the draconian bill harkens back to the gun confiscations of Nazi Germany, the USSR, and China.




The bill would ban all AR15, AKMs, and all other modern sporting rifles. The legislation mentions over 200 brands of firearms by name which would effectively put these companies out of business. I reached out to some of these companies for comment, but I have not gotten a response at the time of this writing.




According to the proposed law, it would ban any pistol that is capable of using a magazine that holds more than ten rounds. The key to this is that the gun just as to be capable of accepting a magazine that holds more than ten rounds. This stipulation means the bill would ban every semiautomatic pistol as an assault weapon.




Most semiautomatic shotguns would also be banned. The bill would ban any semiautomatic shotgun that is capable of holding more than five shells. If the shotgun has a detachable magazine, it would also be prohibited. If it has a folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, it would be considered an assault weapon. A pistol grip or forward grip would also cause it to fall into the banned category. One strange thing in the bill is that it bans any shotgun with a rocket launcher attached. I can't find one case where someone attached a rocket launcher to a shotgun.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Monday, February 26th
110226 views

Bump Stock Ban

Remember when several people were exclaiming how lucky we are that we don't live in MA, where they just outlawed “ #bumpstocks ”, demanding their citizens turn them in for destruction? No money, not “sorry”, no conversation. Turn in your property, or face jail and become a Felon. Well, we're not “lucky” anymore.



For almost 2 months the radical Democrat leadership here in Maine has been trying to weasel something just like their MA Comrades did into our Maine legislature, as EMERGENCY LEGISLATION. It looked like it was going to “go away” but this latest round of propaganda slinging has revitalized them and the Legislative Council will be voting to bring it up to the full legislature next Tuesday (2-27-18).




Think about this for a minute. This silly plastic accessory that thousands of us have been using for competition, recreational shooting and just good solid range time for almost 15 years, without a single problem, is now facing a ban similar to what they just did in MA. How will you like being a felon if you don't turn in your personal private property for destruction or face jail time? In case you are not familiar with what happened in MA, or completely understand the bump stock issue, here is a link to an informational video I uploaded a few weeks ago, in anticipation of this, here, in OUR HOME. Today is that day unless we work diligently. https://youtu.be/NSfle7vrndg.




For those of you who don't think “a bump stock is worth fighting for” let us clue you in a little as to what will happen if this is put up as a sacrificial lamb: Today it will be this innocuous device. It will be crossed off their list. The next thing they will demand that “no one needs” is a magazine capacity over whatever arbitrary limit they place and shove down our throat. You can turn those in as well, or face jail time. Next will be the guns they deem “aren't appropriate for civilians”, and following that will be all the hunting guns that they will finally admit we were right about because they are the same thing, just more powerful.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Monday, February 26th
110027 views

Oklahoma Constitutional Carry

HB 2951 has been introduced in the #Oklahoma House. It is an interesting version of #ConstitutionalCarry . The bill adds #selfdefense to the list of activities that are exceptions to the general prohibition on carrying weapons that exist in Oklahoma law. It includes knives as well as guns.



Coody said House Bill 2951 is about law-abiding citizens protecting themselves in worst-case situations. The proposed legislation says anyone 21 or older, or at least 18 years old and a veteran or enlisted military member, would be able to carry a gun or rifle without a license.




Here is the first change in the bill, which alters 21 O.S. 2011, Section 1272. A. It shall be unlawful for any person to carry upon or about his or her person, or in a purse or other container belonging to the person, any pistol, revolver, shotgun or rifle whether loaded or unloaded or any blackjack, loaded cane, billy, hand chain, metal knuckles, or any other offensive weapon, whether such weapon be concealed or unconcealed, except this section shall not prohibit: 1. The proper use of guns and knives for self-defense, hunting, fishing, educational or recreational purposes.




There are numerous other changes accomplished by the bill, which has the usual exceptions for convicted felons, mentally incompetent, and all the usual list of prohibited possessors. Much of the rest of the bill makes the exceptions for concealed carry permit holders apply to people who may legally possess firearms. There are numerous “gun free zones” in the existing legislation. For most of the zones, the penalty, if such a person is found to be violating the “gun free zone” is to be removed from the property. If they refuse to leave, the penalty is a $250 fine.




The penalty is different for people with concealed carry permits who are caught carrying firearms on the campus of institutes of higher education. If they are caught in such an activity, the campus may report them to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation within 10 days. Then the Bureau shall give notice to the licensee and hold a hearing. The licensee may then be fined $250 and have their license suspended for three months.




The institutes of higher education are not prohibited from imposing administrative penalties on students who violate the institution's administrative rules concerning weapons. The Oklahoma legislature has supermajorities of Republicans in both houses. In the House, the majority is 74 to 26. In the Senate, 38 to 10. The governor of Oklahoma, Mary Fallin, is a Republican. The bill has a reasonable chance of passage. Vermont was the only state with Constitutional Carry for decades, but the bills have been popular in state legislatures in the third millennium.




In 2003, Alaska passed the reform to restore the exercise of Second Amendment rights. In 2010, Arizona passed Constitutional Carry. In 2011, Wyoming, in 2013, Arkansas passed Act 746 into law. It is effectively Constitutional Carry, but is disputed by some county prosecutors. in 2015, Kansas, and Maine joined the Constitutional Carry club. In 2016, Idaho, Missouri, West Virginia, and Alabama enacted Constitutional Carry. In 2017, New Hampshire, and North Dakota were added to the list. There are now 13 states with Constitutional Carry, as many as the original 13 states that ratified the United States Constitution.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Monday, February 26th
110310 views

Stick together

There’s an old joke. If 120 million #gunowners who own 400,000,000 guns with a stockpile of 2 trillion rounds of #ammunition were the problem, you’d know it.



Today we are the target. The established left hates us. The left-wing media blame us for Donald Trump’s election, and they intend to punish us for it. Make us pay for preventing their push towards globalism. To them, gun owners are Neanderthals who hold back the nation and our social evolution. What the left does not value is the belief in individual and God-given rights. Whereas we, the American Gun owner, are the most law-abiding and honest individuals in the country who simply want to be let alone. Let me make this plain. We don’t want this fight… but, the left does. The left will be relentless, they have called for appointing judges that will nullify the 2A, ban guns and then confiscate guns. They blame the NRA for things it has not done. They lie and misrepresent facts to make their false arguments work.




So things and news changes fast. But as of now, here is what we know now: A close acquaintance of the shooter notified authorities, days before the event, of what was going to happen. Nothing was done; The FBI dropped the ball on this one, as they did earlier this year. So let’s blame gun owners and the President.;The police were at the shooter’s home 39 times over the last few years, and no one thought to investigate further. So let’s blame the NRA.;The you-tube posting and videos were ignored by law enforcement. So let’s repeal the 2nd Amendment.; The left disregards the fact. Anything that gets in the way of their blaming gun owners needs to be ignored or swept aside. The same old script from the left. Never let a crisis go to waste.




Their goal is the confiscation of firearms and the disarming of the American populace. This fight isn’t going away anytime soon. I’ve seen the numbers on gun owner turn out from November 2016 and know how we shook up the results. Without gun owners turning out in droves Hillary would be President, and your rights would be stripped from you as we speak. So subscribe to the NRA email update and stay informed. While I favor the NRA, pick a pro-gun group and support them. Learn from putting money away for retirement a little now or a lot later. Get involved now, and let’s fight to preserve our rights and strangle the left's war against our rights! Call your congressperson. Write your local paper. Go to your local politico’s Facebook pages and POLITELY voice your support for the 2nd Amendment. 120,000,000 gun owners united cannot be defeated. Fight now to preserve your rights.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Sunday, February 25th
110354 views

New Jersey Gun Control hearing on W

#NewJersey has some of the most restrictive #guncontrol laws in the country, and those laws have been failing miserably. Look no further than the crime riddled neighborhoods of Paterson, Camden, Newark and Trenton, and you will see New Jersey’s great experiment with gun control is on full display. Incredibly, anti-gun politicians in Trenton are now clamoring for more of the same.



None of these laws were ever designed to actually go after criminals, but rather their target has always been the law-abiding citizen. And just before the close of business on Friday, gun banners launched their next phase with the latest sneak attack.




The Assembly Judiciary Committee has now scheduled a hearing on Wednesday, February 28, at 11:00 a.m. in Room 11 of the State House Annex, fourth floor. Why so little notice? They know it’s important that you attend, and they simply don’t want that to happen. You can bet that their gun control colleagues had plenty of time to make plans to attend and will try to stack the room. As always, it’s important that you call and email your legislators, but NRA-ILA and ANJPRC, the official NRA state association, is also encouraging gun owners to attend and make a strong statement.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Friday, February 23rd
110684 views

Trump Bump Stock Memo

President Donald #Trump released a memo to direct the attorney general to seek comments on a rule purporting to #ban #bumpstocks. The memo, states, in part:



“Today, I am directing the Department of Justice to dedicate all available resources to complete the review of the comments received, and, as expeditiously as possible, to propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.” In light of Trump’s action, Executive Director of Gun Owners of America (GOA) Erich Pratt issued the following statement: “If President Donald Trump’s goal is to ban bump stocks, then that is a gross infringement of Second Amendment rights. GOA has long warned that such a ban can easily be applied to triggers, magazines, or semi-automatic firearms.




“Furthermore, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has ruled multiple times that bump stocks do not convert semi-automatic firearms into fully-automatic firearms. Converting semi-automatic firearms into fully-automatic firearms is already illegal under federal law. “Additionally, a ban on bump stocks would ignore the ATF’s previous public comment period that garnered over a hundred thousand comments, which were overwhelmingly anti-regulation.




“Banning bump stocks will not stop criminals from getting guns, but it can be used by gun controllers to ban triggers, magazines, and semi-automatic firearms.
“While Trump ran as a pro-gun candidate, this action does not appear to line up with his campaign rhetoric. Instead of further restricting the right to keep and bear arms, Trump should urge Congress to pass H.R. 34, which would repeal gun-free school zones, an issue Trump campaigned on. “Regardless of Trump’s future actions on bump stocks, Gun Owners of America remains committed to fighting any bump stock ban or regulation — including the use of legal action.”




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Thursday, February 22nd
110327 views

Our Second Amendment

What are they really saying? What are they really proposing? We are currently being treated to a whole new lexicon of “weasel words” and “weasel terms,” by leftists who just can’t seem to ever get to the point.



1) “Gun ‘safety’ legislation” Exactly what do they mean by that? Specifically, what are they proposing? They never say. We only hear that “weapons of war” should never be in the hands of anyone,,, except of course, for their bodyguards.




2) “Improved background checks” Improved how? Does this mean an unpaid parking ticket will now prevent Americans from owning guns? Just how “perfect” do I have to be in order to legally own a gun? They won’t tell us!




We might recall Democrat-sponsored, and much-heralded, “diversion programs”, designed to prevent “youthful offenders” from acquiring criminal records that could prevent them from legally acquiring guns. This ill-conceived legislation actually aided the FL murderer. Funny, but I don’t hear anyone, from either side of the aisle, proposing that we get rid of it. The only thing I do hear is that I don’t “need” a gun. Here in America, leftist politicians, and their media lackeys, aren’t really very good at anything, except telling the rest of us we have too much freedom.




We’re all told that we need to be “punished,” because we own guns. All of us who have never committed a crime, can’t be trusted. When Democrats/liberals/leftists/RHINOs insist I can’t be trusted with my guns, why would I ever trust them with theirs? We’re back to our ingenious Second Amendment. Military small-arms are the one class of weapons most protected of all by our Second Amendment, because each of us is an involuntary member of the Militia. It’s our birthright, and our birth-obligation, like it or not.




Without the Second Amendment, the rest of our “inalienable rights” as Americans are just hollow promises, so much empty fluff, and will be gone with the wind. We’ll be back to a European feudal/caste system within a single generation. “There is a darkness in you, in all of us, probably. Beasts we keep chained. Ordinary men have to keep these chains strong, for when we let the beast loose, society will turn upon us with fiery vengeance. Kings though…well, who is there to turn upon them? So their ‘chains’ are made of straw. It is the curse of kings that they can become monsters, and invariably do.” ~ David Gemmell




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Thursday, February 22nd
111178 views

National Concealed Carry Reciprocit

The United States Concealed Carry Association ( #USCCA ) today urged lawmakers in Washington to include national reciprocity for #concealedcarry licenses in any gun-related measure considered by Congress in the days ahead.



“The only thing that can definitively stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun and if the goal of any proposed gun-related legislation is to strengthen public safety and protect Americans, then national reciprocity for concealed carry licenses should be included,” said Tim Schmidt, Founder & President of the United States Concealed Carry Association. “This legislation would not only protect law-abiding Americans from a patchwork of contradictory state laws, but it would also strengthen public safety by giving more Americans the ability to protect themselves and those around them.”




The Trump administration is signaling support for legislation that would enhance reporting for the FBI’s background-check database but some in Congress are also seeking to attach national reciprocity legislation. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act has already sailed through the House of Representatives and has the full support of President Trump. It now awaits action in the U.S. Senate where it has roughly 40 co-sponsors. Notably, when similar concealed-carry legislation came to a Senate vote in 2013 it received bipartisan support including from seven Democratic Senators, but was never passed into law.




The United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA), a Wisconsin-based organization with over 250,000 members, provides education, training and self-defense insurance to responsible American gun owners. USCCA was recently featured on CBS News’ 60 Minutes recently on a segment about the effort in Congress to pass reciprocity for concealed carry licenses.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Thursday, February 22nd
111067 views

Reduce Mass Shootings

#Massshooting events in America function much like the water cycle, except one is terrible and the other necessary for life. With every tragedy, especially when children are involved, one side of the political spectrum shouts for changes to the laws and the implementation of new ones to keep our society safe, while the other hand spams the net with “thoughts and prayers” before retreating into a corner. The debate evaporates into the atmosphere only for a more intense storm to come next time around.



It is the opinion of this contributor that gun rights activists and supporters have to be proactive, rather than be defensive not only to secure our safety but our liberties as well.
Antidotes and platitudes about drugged up children and the heyday of school rifle teams don’t cut it. Gun control advocates are winning for their cause because they throw the punches. Gun rights activists can’t win fights by merely trying to weather the blows. Going on the offensive is the best strategy. But where to begin?




Reactionary politics abound these days. If an out-right “assault weapon” ban is out of the political possibility, platitudes about “common sense” gun laws take their place. No one goes into what such laws are and how they would be common sense. Simply putting the words “common sense” doesn’t make them common sense. Visible proposals that are put forward are merely reactions to recent events. The Las Vegas shooter used bump-fire stocks. Not soon after, with the backing of the NRA, legislation to ban such devices was put forward.




With the recent Parkland school shooting, there is talk about raising the age limit to purchase long guns from 18 to 21. Most proposals are not only reactionary but also cheap. Cheap doesn’t necessarily mean effective. Banning inanimate objects and increased regulation is a cheap fix that works in some countries, assuming we laser beam focus on gun violence while ignoring everything else. This does not address violence at all, but the most visible manifestation of it. It is a cheap fix, far less expensive than dealing with societal problems.




Gun control regulations claim to have reduced gun violence in other civilized countries, granted we are ignoring and increasing other types of violence in doing so. But the US is very different from those nations. Nations like England and Australia are isolated with small homogenous populations with no ethnic tensions and a welfare system that is second to none. The best long-term fix is to fix the social welfare system in the United States. But that would cost the wrong people too much money. So cheap fixes abide. However, there is one reasonable fix that might solve our problem.




More guns in schools via armed teachers and having an armed detail on staff would increase our tax burden—something no American wants. I propose that the root of the problem are “gun free zones.” I am not proposing we fill our newspaper editorials and social media comments pointing out that nearly all mass shooting situations occurred at on the site of “gun free zones.” The only people who disarm in good faith are law-abiding citizens who don’t want trouble. Criminals have no such compulsion.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Thursday, February 22nd
110510 views

Penalizing Gun Owners For Governmen

The bombshell admission by the #FBI that it was tipped about the suspect in last week’s tragic #schoolshooting , and yet did nothing, provides damning evidence that it is the government that should be blamed, not American #gunowners , the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.



“The FBI has admitted that it received a tip about the suspect’s disturbing behavior and comments on social media back in January, but didn’t follow up on the information,” noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “On top of that, the public has learned that police in Broward County had been called to the suspect’s residence more than 30 times over the past few years.




“But who is being demonized as a result of the Parkland school shooting,” Gottlieb questioned. “That’s right, American gun owners.” “Why should they be penalized and see their rights eroded because government agencies screwed up? The gun prohibition lobby has been prattling non-stop since Day One that the country needs to add more restrictions on gun rights. “Why should gun owners give up their firearms freedom and sacrifice their personal security when the government can’t provide the security these gun grabbers promise with all of their cockeyed proposals,” he wondered.




“Even before all the students had been evacuated from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, gun prohibition lobbying groups including billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety and all of its satellite groups were clamoring for tougher gun laws,” Gottlieb noted. “They were all quick to blame gun ownership when the problem appears to be government incompetence, and this is not the first time it’s happened.




“The Texas church shooter’s criminal record should have prevented him from buying firearms,” Gottlieb said, “but the records weren’t forwarded by the military to the National Instant Check System. This wasn’t the fault of gun owners, but the government. And now anti-gunners want us to surrender our rights? “Ronald Reagan was right,” Gottlieb concluded. “Government isn’t the solution to the problem. Government is the problem.”




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Thursday, February 22nd
110847 views

Constitutional Carry in Iowa?

A #ConstitutionalCarry bill is moving in #Iowa , along with a constitutional amendment recognizing the right to keep and #beararms (Iowa is one of the few states [new jersey but that is a lost cause] that does not have a right to arms enshrined in its constitution), and a measure to lift the ban on firearms in vehicles when picking up and dropping off students at schools.



I don’t want to jinx them, but at the moment things are looking fairly promising. I have a particular interest in Iowa because I was deeply involved in an effort to pass Constitutional Carry there in 2010. Unfortunately, that effort imploded and damaged the local rights movement as various proponents of gun rights got their beams crossed and went to war with each other, instead of working together. In the end, the legislature passed a relatively good, Shall Issue licensing system, which was much better than the discretionary system that had been in place previously. The victory was expensive, however, as the infighting created some lifelong enemies among rights advocates who should work together, and came close to completely tanking the rights movement in the state. It also left a lot of low-hanging fruit on the tree.




Now, 8 years later, progress is being made toward finally harvesting some of that fruit. : Constitutional Carry Rights activists need to always keep the long view in mind. We often hear warnings about letting the perfect become the enemy of the good, or admonitions to take what we can get when we can get it. That is often sound advice, but sometimes this “strategic” advice just doesn't apply, most notably that chestnut that says we must accept something unpalatable lest we have something much worse shoved down our throats. That may be true in some truly benighted places like Illinois or New York, but across most of the country, it’s a lie, as my late father wrote in a column, later compiled in The Gun Rights War entitled “The Danger of Being ‘Reasonable’”




In Iowa in 2010, the admonitions were about taking what we could get, and not letting the perfect stand in the way of the good enough, but both of those approaches were wrong in that case. In fact, the perfect was quite possible, but some of the players were more interested in scoring an easy win than they were with getting the best possible deal. One of the most overlooked strategies in gun politics is the power of losing. That’s what the NRA did in 1992, when then-ILA Executive Director Tanya Metaksa faced tremendous pressure to “come to the table” and negotiate a more acceptable compromise on the Clinton “Assault Weapons” ban. Backed by a hard-line NRA Board, Tanya stood her ground – and lost. The Clinton Ban passed with Vice President Al Gore casting the deciding vote. But that loss led directly to the Democrats’ crushing 1994 defeat and made gun control a deadly “third rail” for the next twenty years. It also contributed to Al Gore losing his own home state in 2000, costing him the presidency.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, February 21st
110946 views

Trump Caves to Gun Control

President Donald #Trump said on Tuesday he had directed his Attorney General to compose changes that would ban so-called #bumpstocks or #gunparts , which make it easier to fire guns more quickly.



“Just a few moments ago I signed a memo directing the attorney general to propose regulations that ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns,” Trump said at a Medal of Valor event at the White House, addressing Attorney General Jeff Sessions. “I expect these regulations to be finalized, Jeff, very soon,” Trump said. President Trump made no acknowledgment that machine guns are legal in the USA and already highly regulated. Also, he offered no clarification of how fast is too fast to shoot your gun?




Early last fall the NRA issued an official statement that they would allow the banning of bump stocks, which lead to sharp criticism of the organization by American gun owners and is likely what opened up the door to today's move by president Trump. Once more, a glaring example of why you can not allow any reasonable compromise when it comes to guns and gun rights. Moments earlier, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said Trump ordered the Justice Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to review bump fire stocks, which she said had been completed. She said movement on that front would take place shortly.




“The President, when it comes to that, is committed to ensuring that those devices are — again I'm not going to get ahead of the announcement, but I can tell you that the President doesn't support use of those gun accessories,” Sanders said. In December, the Justice Department announced that it had begun a federal rule-making process that could reinterpret the legality of specific bump fire stock devices, a piece of equipment that enabled the Las Vegas gunman in October to fire on concertgoers more rapidly, mimicking automatic fire. Repeatedly during the 2016 Presidential campaign candidate Trump had made direct promises to American gun voters that he supports the Second Amendment and promised to protect it at all cost. So much for that promise.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, February 21st
110869 views

Trumps Lawless Bump Stock Ban

#FPC has released the following statement regarding President #Trump ’s new demand for #guncontrol and a ban on legal firearm parts.



Yesterday, President Donald Trump said that he signed “a memo” directing Attorney General Jeff Sessions to declare firearm parts, like so-called “bump stock” devices, to be illegal “machineguns” without due process or a legal basis in the statutes for doing so. Just as we opposed the lawless manner in which President Obama often ruled by ‘pen-and-a-phone’ executive fiat, and we likewise object to and resist President Trump’s outrageous lawlessness here.




Last month, FPC submitted a formal letter of opposition to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ advanced noticed of proposed rulemaking on the “Application of the Definition of Machinegun to Bump Fire Stocks and Other Similar Devices.” In our comments, we explained that the “DOJ and BATFE clearly lack the statutory authority to re-define the targeted devices as ‘machineguns’,” and that these ATF-approved and legally-possessed devices could not be regulated firearms under the statutes.




Today’s order makes clear that the Trump Administration will leave FPC and law-abiding gun owners no choice but to seek a judicial remedy. It is time for the People to wrestle back control of its policies from runaway executive branch officials and eliminate the “jiggery-pokery” of made-up judicial constructs like agency deference under cases like Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, Auer v. Robbins, and Chevron v. NRDC.




Regardless of the venue, the American peoples’ fundamental human rights—and lawfully-possessed private property—are not up for debate. As the Supreme Court held in its landmark, but too-often ignored, D.C. v. Heller decision, “The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.”




If the Republican-held House and Senate, and President Donald Trump, choose to act on new gun control over the pro-gun rights legislation that the American people were promised in 2016, they will have shown the voters that neither major political party cares about their rights or the Constitution—and that the only real, civil option left is a new constitutional amendment.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, February 21st
111187 views

10-Day Waiting Period Laws Denied

The #Calguns Foundation has issued the following statement regarding the #SupremeCourt ’s decision to not review a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that upheld #California ’s 10-day waiting period for existing #gunowners who pass a background check.



We are disappointed, but not entirely surprised, that the Court has once again decided against taking up a Second Amendment challenge to plainly unconstitutional laws. In his important 14-page dissent from the Court’s denial of certiorari, Justice Clarence Thomas detailed why the Ninth Circuit applied an improper “deferential analysis” that was “indistinguishable from rational-basis review,” showing “the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right.”




We agree with Justice Thomas that the Ninth Circuit’s “double standard is apparent from other cases,” like one where it invalidated an Arizona law partly because it “delayed” women seeking an abortion, and another where it struck down a Washington county’s 5-day waiting period for adult dancing licenses because it “unreasonably prevent[ed] a dancer from exercising first amendment rights while an application [was] pending.”




As Justice Thomas explained, the “Ninth Circuit would not have done this for any other constitutional right, and it could not have done this unless it was applying rational-basis review.” He is, of course, correct—just as we have maintained throughout the course of this appeal and in our briefing to the Supreme Court. But in the Ninth Circuit, it appears, “rights that have no basis in the Constitution receive greater protection than the Second Amendment, which is enumerated in the text.” From the bottom of our hearts, we wish to thank every single supporter who generously helped us litigate this long-running case through trial and up to the Supreme Court. We also want to thank amici Cato Institute, Crime Prevention Research Center, Firearms Policy Coalition, Madison Society Foundation, Gun Owners of California, and Firearms Policy Foundation for their excellent briefs in support of our case and the cause of individual liberty.




The Calguns Foundation will continue to challenge unconstitutional gun control laws until the Second Amendment takes its place as a peer among fundamental rights, like those in the First Amendment, rather than the “constitutional orphan” and “second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees” that it is in the Ninth Circuit today. A copy of Justice Thomas’s dissent and all Supreme Court filings in Silvester v. Becerra can be viewed or downloaded at https://www.calgunsfoundation.org/silvester. The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to advance Second Amendment and related civil rights.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Tuesday, February 20th
111385 views

Age to Buy Rifle Raises to 21

Everyone's favorite gun-grabbing Senator, #DianneFeinstein , is back at it again with more #antigun legislation. This time she is using the tragic #schoolshooting in Parkland, Florida to push her political agenda on the American Public.



A gun free zone and high school in Parkland, Florida was a recent scene of a mass shooting carried out by a mentally disturbed man named, Nicholas Cruz. The FBI was tipped off about Cruz's plan to execute a mass shooting at the school, but they failed to act on the information. Police took Cruz into custody after he killed 17 of his former classmates.




Sen. Feinstein (D-Ca) from San Franciso has said she is going to introduce a bill in the Senate that would raise the age to purchase a rifle from 18 years old to 21 years old. The 18-year-olds, who serve in the military, will still be able to carry a gun in combat. They just will not be allowed to buy one when they return home from protecting our freedom from the people that want to kill us. “Under current law, licensed gun dealers cannot sell a handgun to anyone under 21, but they are allowed to sell assault rifles like the AR-15 to anyone over 18,” Feinstein said of the current laws. “This policy is dangerous and makes absolutely no sense.”




Feinstein demonstrated in her statement that she doesn't understand what constitutes an assault rifle. An assault rifle is a heavily regulated select fire firearm that cost thousands of dollars. Private collectors cannot buy any assault rifles made after 1986. The AR15 is not an assault rifle and is not a select-fire rifle. It is undetermined if Feinstein calling an AR15 an assault rifle is a mistake, or if she was making an attempted to fool the general public. Since she has to know her bill will not make it out of committee, this could also be an attempt to satisfy the far left wing of the Democratic party.




“If you can't buy a handgun or a bottle of beer, you shouldn't be able to buy an AR-15,” Feinstein went on to say. “This is common sense, and I hope my Republican colleagues will join me in this effort.” What Feinstein doesn't explain is how it isn't “common sense” to know that criminals don't obey the laws. Murder is already illegal so if a person already violates one of the ten commandments and something that is illegal in every country in the world why would they obey gun laws? Wouldn't it be “common sense” that these evil people wouldn't follow the law? This bill isn't the first time Senator Feinstein exploited a tragedy to push her far left anti-gun agenda. After the Las Vegas shooting in October, where Stephen Paddock killed over 50 people, she introduced the “Automatic Gunfire Prevention Act.” This act would have banned bump stocks. It never made it out of committee.




Undeterred by her repeated failures a month later she introduced a so-called “assault weapons ban.” This bill would have banned cosmetic features on firearms as well as imposing a magazine size limit which would prohibit any magazine that holds over ten rounds. According to the Clinton era justice department, the Bill Clinton assault weapons ban had little to no effect. Once again this bill also died in committee. The bill will be dead on arrival, but Feinstein will continue to push her anti-gun agenda. Dianne Feinstein has ignored the mental health issues that have been at the root of every one of these mass shootings. Feinstein seems to be using the NRA as her boogyman to raise money.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Tuesday, February 20th
111288 views

Church Protection Act

An #Alabama representative, Lynn Greer (R), has filed a bill to clarify Alabama law to include #churches with dwellings that have protection under the law to use deadly force to protect the people inside from attack. On 15 February, 2018, the bill was passed with overwhelming support, 40 to 16, in the House. 39 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted for the bill, 2 #Republicans and 14 Democrats voted against it.



The bill, sponsored by Rep. Lynn Greer, R-Rogersville, would add houses of worship to the state’s 2006 law, allowing a person to use physical force against anyone committing a crime, attempting a crime or attacking an employee, volunteer or member of a church. “If you have someone coming into a church with a gun that starts shooting folks, you want to have someone that’s going to shoot back,” Greer said during the debate.




The House approved the measure 40 to 16. In the Montgomery delegation, Rep. Reed Ingram, R-Pike Road voted for the bill; Reps. John Knight and Thad McClammy, both D-Montgomery, voted against it. Reps. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery; Kelvin Lawrence, D-Hayneville; Dimitri Polizos, R-Montgomery and Chris Sells, R-Greenville were listed as not voting.




The bill extends the protection to offsite church social events and does not specify that the protection of church members needs to take place in a church itself, and opponents of the legislation have said it would extend Stand Your Ground well beyond houses of worship. The bill is one of a number of legislative measures to remove legislative obstacles that prevent effective means to self-defense and others in “gun free” zones.




From the bill, HB 34: “(2) CHURCH. A bona fide duly constituted religious society or ecclesiastical body of any sect, order, or5denomination, or any congregation thereof.“ (2)(3) DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE. Force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.” (3)(4) DWELLING. A building which is usually occupied by a person lodging therein at night, or a building of any kind, including any attached balcony, whether the building is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.




It was not entirely clear that churches would be included as “dwellings” under the old law. The intent of HB 34 is to amend the law to insure that churches have the same protection as dwellings, under the law. From al.com: The bill says a person is presumed justified in the use of deadly force if they reasonably believe someone is about to seriously harm a church member at a church function. Rep. Lynn Greer said he proposed the bill at the request of a church in his district after shootings in other states.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Monday, February 19th
111109 views

Stand Your Ground

On 15 February, 2018, a “Stand Your Ground” bill passed the #Wyoming House with an overwhelming majority. Only one #Republican voted against it. The bill, HB 168, passed the House 51 to 8. 49 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted for the bill. 7 Democrats and 1 Republican voted against the bill. One Republican was excused during the vote. Representative Bob Nicholas was the sole Republican voting against the popular measure.



More than 40 co-sponsors from both political parties signed onto House Bill 168 before it was brought for introduction Thursday. The legislation would take the castle doctrine, which doesn’t require a duty to retreat in self-defense within the home, and expand it. Essentially, it provides immunity from criminal prosecution from liability in self-defense-style shootings in public settings.




“This bill simply expands it so anywhere you are allowed to be, that castle doctrine comes with you,” Rep. Tim Salazar, R-Dubois, said on the House floor. “You do not have to retreat if you are in fear of your very life, the life of yourself or your family members. This bill is needed in the state of Wyoming because we’re the only state in the entire West that does not have it.”




The measure provides immunity for anyone who uses “defensive force in order to prevent an injury or loss to himself or another person” so long as he or she was not doing anything illegal or trespassing when attacked. Wyoming currently considers a person to have acted in self defense if he or she “held a reasonable fear” of death or serious injury. The stand your ground bill advanced Thursday changes that definition to a “good faith belief” of danger, specifying that a person is immune from civil liability or prosecution for using force even if it turns out they were not actually facing injury or death.




Civil asset forfeiture abuse has become more common as police departments have used it as a significant source of funding. From HB168: …is immune from civil action for the use of the force, including any civil forfeiture action brought by the state of Wyoming. The “Stand Your Ground” reform of self defense law in Wyoming seems likely to pass. 27 of the 30 senate seats are Republican. The Governor, Matt Mead, seems likely to sign this relatively uncontroversial and popular bill. The popularity of “Stand Your Ground” bills appears to rest on reining in the power of prosecutors to prosecute people in self defense cases, punishing them by process, even though they are likely to be found not guilty.




The case of George Zimmerman, who was found not guilty in the self-defense shooting of Trayvon Martin, is often mentioned when “Stand Your Ground” laws are discussed. In fact, the Florida “Stand Your Ground” law had nothing to do with the case. It was never used by the Zimmerman defense, as it was not applicable. HB 168 seems likely to pass. Its purpose, to keep law abiding people who are forced to defend themselves from being bankrupted during later legal processes, may well be achieved.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Monday, February 19th
111694 views

National Handgun Carry Reciprocity

The “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017” (115 H.R. 38) amends the federal criminal code to allow a qualified individual to carry a #concealedhandgun into or possess a concealed #handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry #concealedfirearms.



Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC), introduced the bill on March 2, 2017. The bill passed the House by Roll Call Vote of 231-198, on December 6, 2017. It was sent to the Senate one day later, where it was read twice and then referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. President Trump supports it. The NRA supports it. And, rank and file law enforcement officers support it too. But, there has been to date no further action on it. The bill sits in limbo. Its prospect of passage is, at present, low. Why is that?




Every day that goes by innocent lives are lost and crimes that could be avoided go undeterred because of restrictive gun laws. Although States like California, New York, and New Jersey have enacted laws allowing for issuance of concealed carry licenses (CCWs), in practice it is extremely difficult for most law-abiding citizens—and virtually impossible for many law-abiding citizens—who reside in any one of those States, or in other States with similar restrictive gun laws, to obtain a CCW. And none of those States recognizes a valid CCW issued in any other State.




Having access to a firearm does save innocent lives. There are countless stories of law-abiding citizens who would have been seriously injured or who would have lost their lives if they did not have access to a firearm. U.S. Marine Corps veteran, Alexander Borrego, serves as a recent example of a man who, being armed, was able to thwart an attack on his life and that of his family. But, the lack of a national handgun carry reciprocity law means that lawful use of a handgun for self-defense is subject to severe jurisdictional constraints. It is not uncommon for an otherwise law-abiding citizen, who holds a valid CCW from one State, to face arrest, indictment on misdemeanor or felony charges, and incarceration if convicted, for having carried a handgun into another State [IE: New Jersey] that does not recognize that citizen’s CCW.




Many American citizens have suffered calamity as a result. There are many examples. Elizabeth Anne Enderli, a decorated military veteran, and holder of a valid CCW from Texas, was arrested for unlawful possession of a handgun when she carried her handgun into New York. Brian Fletcher, a volunteer emergency electrical storm repairman and holder of a valid CCW from North Carolina, was arrested for unlawful possession of a handgun when he carried his handgun into New Jersey. And, Shaneen Allen, a single mother of two, and holder of a valid CCW from Pennsylvania was arrested for unlawful handgun possession when she, too, carried her handgun into New Jersey. Law-abiding citizens who hold a valid CCW from their home State should not be restricted to their use of a handgun for self-defense only to their home State, but, they often are; and the personal costs are dire when a citizen steps foot into a jurisdiction that does not recognize the validity of that citizen’s CCW. But, why should this be?




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, February 14th
112645 views

Illegal DOJ Gun Control Policy

In a published decision issued today, #California ’s 3rd District Court of Appeal has issued an important new ruling striking down an illegal California Department of Justice (DOJ) #guncontrol enforcement policy on multiple grounds.



The lawsuit, filed in 2014, was brought by two individuals after the DOJ’s Bureau of Firearms sent a letter notifying firearms dealers in the state of a new enforcement policy that prevents Californians who hold both a federal firearms license and a state Certificate of Eligibility, or “COE”, from purchasing more than one handgun in any 30-day period. After nearly two years of litigation, and in spite of both the requirements of the State’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and legal precedents on how to interpret statutes, the Sacramento Superior Court upheld the DOJ’s policy. But the Court of Appeal ultimately found that the policy was illegal, agreeing with the plaintiffs on both counts.




“This decision stands for the proposition that Attorney General Becerra and his Department of Justice are not above the law,” explained Brandon Combs, executive director for The Calguns Foundation. “They can’t simply make up the law as they go, without following the rules or having a legal basis in the statutes. The DOJ fabricated and enforced an illegal policy and we put an end to it with this case.”




Combs added that the decision is important for other issues as well, especially because it is citable as precedent. “Today’s decision is perhaps even more important because of the state’s new ammunition and assault weapon laws. Attorney General Becerra has been doing similar things in other areas of state law, and we are eager to show that, like their illegal policy here, those also must be enjoined and struck down.” Plaintiffs’ attorney Bradley Benbrook of the Sacramento-based Benbrook Law Group hailed the decision. “We are gratified that the court affirmed the important principle that the State can’t take shortcuts when it tries to regulate citizens,” commented Benbrook. “It has to follow the rules.”




Doe, et al. v. Attorney Genera Xavier Becerra, et al. was supported by two California-based civil rights advocacy organizations: The Calguns Foundation, which focuses on legal efforts to protect individuals’ gun rights, and the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, the state’s firearms industry group. The Calguns Foundation is participating in a lawsuit challenging the DOJ’s “bullet button assault weapons” regulations on similar grounds. More information about that case can be found at http://bit.ly/cgf-holt.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Monday, February 12th
113173 views

Hawaii Trigger Modification Bill

On Tuesday, February 13 2018, the House Committee on Judiciary has scheduled to hear House Bill 1908, legislation prohibiting certain #triggermodifications. Contact members of the Committee and urge their opposition to HB 1908 .



Also, please consider submitting testimony to the committee through the Hawaii Legislature website. In order to submit testimony, you will need to create an account. House Bill 1908, introduced by Representative Gregg Takayama (D-34), would make it a felony for any person who “manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the State, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses” certain trigger modifications. The broad language of this bill could encompass many common modifications done by law-abiding gun owners to make their firearms more suitable for self-defense, competition, hunting, or even overcoming disability.




On Thursday, the House Committee on Public Safety passed House Bill 2228 with amendments. House Bill 2228 will now move to the Judiciary committee where it has yet to be scheduled for a hearing. House Bill 2228, sponsored by Representative Gregg Takayama (D-34), is similar to SB 2436, dramatically reducing the time period a prohibited person, whether temporarily or permanently prohibited, has to comply with the current requirement to surrender their firearms from 30 days to 24 hours. This expedited time period could subject an individual, who may have nothing more than allegations as the basis for the prohibition, to an unfettered search of their home and/or business within days of being accused; all this without taking into account the many issues surrounding “surrender statutes” in general, including possible violations of an individual’s right against self-incrimination.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Monday, February 12th
113235 views

Iowa Constitutional Amendment

#Iowa is one of only six states that do not have a state constitutional provision that protects the right to keep and #beararms in some way.
The other five states without such a provision are California, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York. The two outliers on that list are Iowa and Minnesota.



Both states have strong Second Amendment activist organizations. An Iowa legislator is attempting to remedy the lack of the constitutional protection. One of the reasons Iowa does not have such a protection in its constitution, is the process to enact constitutional amendment in Iowa is extremely difficult. The resolution for the constitutional amendment has to pass the legislature, then an election must happen, then it must pass the legislature again. It will then be sent to the people as a referendum. If the people vote for it, it will become part of the Iowa Constitution. Here is the proposed amendment.




From iowa.gov: Right to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms. SEC. 1A. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes the fundamental right of the people to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for all legitimate purposes. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.




The Republican leadership failed to allow the amendment to come to a vote in 2017. These amendments are immensely popular. The difficult part of the process is to bring the amendment to a vote.. If the Republican leadership opposes the amendment, it dies. In 2018, the Matt Windsciti laid out the case for the amendment.




From iowapublicradio.org: Rep. Matt Windschitl (R-Missouri Valley) said the amendment backs up second amendment rights already secured by the U.S. Constitution “It spells it out very clearly and concisely so that there is no question about what our Second Amendment rights are,” Windschitl said, “and that if they are to be regulated the regulations will be held to a very high level of scrutiny by our judicial system.”




If the Republican leadership allows this to come to the floor for a vote, it will pass. The Republicans in Iowa hold majorities in both houses of the Iowa Legislature for the first time in 20 years. If they lose control of either house to the Democrats, it will not be brought up for a vote. The amendment passed the first Sub-Committee vote on Thursday, 25 January, 2018. If the amendment is brought up again in 2019, it will pass. If the amendment is offered to the public, it will pass. The same process played out in Wisconsin 20 years ago in 1998. The amendment passed with 72 percent of the vote.




No right to bear arms Constitutional Amendment referendum has been defeated at the polls. Voters have passed similar constitutional amendments in other states with wide margins. Alabama passed a similar amendment in 2014 with 72 percent of the vote; Missouri had strengthened its Constitution just months before with 61 percent; Louisiana in 2012 with 74 percent of the vote; and Kansas in 2010 with 88 percent. The Iowa State Seal says “OUR LIBERTIES WE PRIZE AND OUR RIGHTS WE WILL MAINTAIN”. Time for Iowans to live up to their slogan.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Thursday, February 8th
114164 views

Knock Down Park Gun Ban

The #Illinois Supreme Court struck a blow against the gun grabbers in the Illinois government by voting unanimously against a provision in a law that tried to #ban #guns from being legally carried near public parks.



The provision in the law that deals with parks would have prevented law-abiding citizens from being able to legally carry their firearms within 1000 feet of a public park. But, with laws already on the books that prevent people from legally being armed within 1000 feet of schools, courthouses, public housing, and transportation facilities it makes it hard to carry a firearm in cities like Chicago and even harder in smaller towns. Further legislation would have limited the freedom of movement of citizens around the state severely.




Liberal politicians in Illinois pulled out the old trick of claiming that this provision in the law was about the children. They went as far as trying to pull at the heart string of the judges by referencing teenager Hadiya Pendleton, who performed at Obama's second inauguration. Pendleton was killed by eighteen-year-old Michael Ward, who was on probation and was not legally allowed to carry a gun. Ward mistook Pendleton for revival gang member. Another case cited as the reason for this law was the death of Tyshawn Lee. Lee was playing basketball in the park when gang members approached him. Lee left with the gang member and the gang killed him in an alley close to the park. Again, these were criminals who did not have a concealed handgun permit and were also prohibited from owning guns by federal law.




Julio Chairez brought the case to the courts. Chairez pleaded guilty to carrying a firearm within 1000 feet of a park in Aurora, Illinois. The Kane County Circuit Court sentenced him to two years of probation. Other than this conviction Chairez did not have a criminal record. “We’re saying its unconstitutional everywhere because no one in Illinois would be able to travel throughout the state without entering these zones which are not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest,” Chairez's Chairez’s court-appointed attorney, Erin Johnson, argued in court. Johnson gave an example that if a person was driving in their car by a park with a gun in their glove box that they would be in violation of the law transforming a law-abiding citizen into a criminal. She further insisted in her oral argument that it would place an undue burden on the citizens of Illinois when traveling because along with the other provisions it excludes vast areas within the state.




Johnson also argued that since so much of Illinois would be off-limits to citizens that it violated the Second Amendment. Assistant Attorney General Garson Fischer disputed this charge. He told the court that, “this is not a comprehensive ban on carrying a weapon,” and insisted that municipalities have been using provisions like these for hundreds of years. The Judges seemed unmoved. The Illinois Supreme Court struck down the provision because the state did not prove how this act would protect children.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Thursday, February 8th
114143 views

NH Trying to Stop Progun Reforms

We have previously told you about HB 1749, which will provide an enforcement mechanism for the existing state #law that prohibits cities, towns and counties from regulating, taxing or prohibiting the sale, ownership and use of #firearms. The House Municipal and County Government Committee ignored your calls and emails and has recommended that HB 1749 be voted to interim study; which, in the second year of a legislative session usually means a certain death for a bill.



There has been a lot misinformation being spread about HB 1749: Let me be clear, HB 1749 does not grant any power to the legislature that it does not now have. It merely amends existing law (R.S.A. 159:26) that already prohibits cities, towns, and counties from regulating firearms in any form by adding penalties to existing law. When a similar law was enacted in Florida, amending a 23-year-old preemption law, no local official actually paid a penalty. The enactment of penalties encouraged compliance and that is the result we are expecting in New Hampshire.




On Wednesday, February 7, the entire House of Representatives will decide whether or not to accept the committee recommendation. The House Calendar has a floor amendment, (2018-0408h) and some of the legislators that care about your rights will attempt to overturn the Committee's anti-gun recommendation. We have asked our Counsel to review the amendment and it is a GOOD amendment which will make HB 1749 a BETTER bill. If you care to read this amendment, it is published in the February 2, 2018 House Calendar; click here to open the calendar and then go to page 72 to read the amendment for yourself.




We need your help to pass the amendment and then pass HB 1749 which will stop local gun bans. Now is the time to start contacting all State Representatives and ask them to support the Floor Amendment to HB 1749, which is amendment number 2018-0408h. The New Hampshire Firearms Coalition works very hard to tell people about the positive actions that legislators take to protect the civil rights of the gun owners. I look forward to hearing from them about your support of our civil rights. Thanks for your anticipated support. We consider this issue of vital importance to our Second Amendment civil liberties in New Hampshire; please, without delay email your state representatives and forward this alert to all of your gun owning friends and family members.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, February 7th
114325 views

Concealed Carry Success

We were off to a good start with SB 27, a bill sponsored by Senator Hough. That bill allows an applicant for a #carrypermit to submit an application for a carry permit without first taking all the training. Upon receiving preliminary approval of the application from the State Police, the applicant then has 120 days to get the training to get the permit. The Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee scheduled early hearings on SB 27, issued a favorable report in a near-unanimous vote and the Bill has already passed the Senate and is now before the House of Delegates. Our testimony on the bill can be found here. This bill is identical to the one passed last year by the House of Delegates and we remain hopeful that SB 27 will be passed by the House and become law.




Next up was SB 99, a bill sponsored by Senator Norman. That bill would modify the “good and substantial reason” requirement for a carry permit to include “self-protection or self-defense.” The bill received a hearing on January 17, 2018 (our written testimony can be found here). It has not been voted on in the Senate Judicial Proceedings. The same language is found in HB 647, introduced in the House with 27 sponsors. HB 398 would similarly repeal the requirement of a “good and substantial reason” entirely. These bills have not yet been scheduled for a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee.




SB 602 and HB 534 are the medical marijuana bills. Unusually, SB 602 was filed with bipartisan support (Senators Hough and Chairman Zirkin). These bills state that a person may not be denied the right to purchase, possess or carry a firearm because they are authorized by state law to use medical marijuana. We are not sure the actual legal effect of these bills, given that marijuana use remains illegal under federal law and illegal use under the federal law both makes it illegal for a dealer to sell to such a person and further makes it illegal for such a person to even possess firearms. Indeed, the mere possession of a medical marijuana card is a federal disqualification for purchases from an FFL. See here for a discussion of the legal framework.




There are other good bills as well. For example, HB 792 (sponsored by Del. Malone) and SB 472 (sponsored by Senator Hough), would extend the carry permit period from 2 years to 5 years and the renewal period from 3 years to 5 years. SB 472 is set for hearing on Feb. 13 before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. Also important is SB 497 (text), a bill that would require the State Police to issue a handgun permit to a person who is otherwise qualified and who is a person eligible for relief under a protective order, or who is under the protection of an order for protection. SB 497 is also scheduled for a hearing in the Senate on Feb. 13. HB 758 would allow a person, with the written consent of the church or religious organization, to carry a firearm without a permit while on the property of a such an organization.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, February 7th
114284 views

Restore Veterans Second Amendment R

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) introduced bipartisan legislation along with Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) to restore veterans’ #SecondAmendment rights. Under current practice, once the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) assigns a fiduciary to help a #veteran manage benefit payments, the VA will report that veteran’s name to the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS), commonly known as the national #gunban list.



Once on the gun ban list, a veteran is outlawed from owning or possessing firearms, resulting in some veterans who are perfectly safe to own firearms being denied their constitutional rights. In order for veterans to get their names removed from the list, he or she must prove that they are not dangerous. That is a higher standard than the government must live by in order to place names on the list in the first place. If veterans have to prove they are not dangerous in order to get their firearms back, then the government ought to prove they are dangerous in order to take them away.




“This improper application of existing regulations to service men and women is not only unfair, but arguably unconstitutional. Our veterans shouldn’t need to jump through hoops to be granted their constitutional rights, all the while the government isn’t subject to the same standards,” Grassley said. “I’m working to correct this outrageous and, frankly, unjustifiable process quickly and to prevent future injustices for our veterans.”




“Our service members have sacrificed so much to protect our rights, and it’s critical that we ensure their rights are being protected,” Ernst said. “It’s absurd that our veterans are subject to this unjust scrutiny, and that they have been required to fight for what should be a constitutionally protected Second Amendment right. We must correct this injustice and I’m pleased to work with my colleagues to protect our veterans’ rights.” “As a law-abiding gun owner, hunter, card-carrying life member of the NRA and Second Amendment advocate, I have always strongly supported a West Virginian’s right to bear arms and that includes our veterans. Our veterans have put their lives on the line in defense of our freedoms and should not be subject to a different standard than the Americans they defended,” Manchin said.




The Veterans’ Second Amendment Rights Restoration Act of 2018 would restore veterans’ constitutional rights by shifting the burden of proof from the veteran back to the government, requiring that before the VA reports a veteran’s name to the DOJ for placement on the NICS, the VA must first find that a veteran is a danger to self or others. The finding must also be done either through an administrative process managed by a board of three former judicial officers or administrative law judges or through a judicial process. The legislation puts the veteran in control of choosing the forum. Veterans already on the NICS list would be afforded the same legal avenues of redress to challenge their classification and undertake the same administrative or judicial route to remove their names from the NICS.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, February 7th
114432 views

Overturn NJ Unconstitutional Handgu

The Association of #NewJersey #Rifle and #Pistol Clubs announced today that it has filed suit in federal court to overturn New Jersey's draconian restrictions on carrying a handgun outside the home for self-defense!



Under New Jersey law, a permit to carry a handgun may be issued only to those citizens who show that they face a unique need for self-defense – such as specific, documented death threats or actual attacks. Ordinary citizens are barred from carrying a handgun outside the home for self-defense, under threat of up to 10 years in prison. The new lawsuit seeks to overturn New Jersey's carry law on the ground that it violates the Second Amendment.




In the landmark 2008 Heller decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-protection, and it struck down a District of Columbia law banning the possession of firearms in the home. “The core Second Amendment right of armed self-defense is just as important to an ordinary New Jersey citizen when she is traveling through a dangerous neighborhood as it is when she is safe in her home,” said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach. “The Supreme Court has said that the States cannot ban people from keeping firearms for self-defense in their homes, and New Jersey's restrictions on carrying firearms outside the home will meet the same end.”




Federal courts in New Jersey have previously upheld the State's restrictions, but the new lawsuit-which was filed in cooperation with the National Rifle Association, asks the courts to take another look at the issue, based on a recent federal decision striking down the District of Columbia's similar law as flatly unconstitutional. “We thank the NRA for its incredible support and guidance, which made this new lawsuit possible,” continued Bach.




“The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that police have no legal duty to protect individual citizens from harm, which means you're on your own in an emergency,” Bach continued. “The same government that abandons its duty to keep you safe should not also block your Constitutional right to protect yourself. Right to carry's time is coming in the Garden State, and Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs and NRA are at the forefront of that movement.”




Although the lawsuit has already been filed, ANJRPC requests that anyone recently denied a carry permit in New Jersey contact us ASAP at lawsuit@newjerseycarry.com.
Please forward this article to every gun owner you know, and if you don't already receive alerts from Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, please subscribe to our free email alerts for the latest Second Amendment breaking news and action alerts.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, February 7th
114650 views

How to Have an Impact

If you care about your #rights , your finances, your children’s future, there is a way for you to dramatically impact those things, and it's not really that difficult or time-consuming. Most #Americans view #politics as something of a necessary evil.



To them, it is an activity going on in a separate world, like the salacious scandals of Hollywood or the curious culture of ancient Egypt. They gossip about it, “tut-tut” over news reports, and retweet catchy comments from their favorite political commentators, but when it comes down to the real nuts and bolts of politics and the political process, very few Americans are really paying attention to, much less engaged in, the political process. Gun guys are only a little better, with some actually keeping tabs on current legislation, and making calls or sending emails to legislators. Some even get involved every two years to help support a local candidate or turn out for a rally, but even most folks who consider themselves politically active, really aren't effectively engaged in the process.




Former Democrat Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill made famous the phrase; “All politics is local,” and he was absolutely right about that. I’ve said in this space before that “little politicians grow up to be big politicians.” That's part of the local influence. While we occasionally see someone who has never held a political office, jump in and get elected to high office, as Donald Trump did, it is much more common for politicians to work their way up the ladder, from a city council or school board seat to a state legislative seat to Treasurer or Governor or Congress.




That's why I call on GunVoters to vote guns all the way down the ticket. Opposing the Second Amendment should be a disqualifying position, regardless of whether that office has any bearing on your gun rights. That office is likely to be a stepping stone to higher offices where they could have a negative impact on rights. If you really want to vote for them, you have to educate them first, and if they can't see the light, don't let them put a foot on that political ladder.




The other, and more important way that all politics is local, is that support for politicians comes up from the grassroots. Conversely, it is almost impossible for a politician to accomplish anything without some sort of organized party structure behind them to get the grassroots moving in their favor; that's the part that often works from the top down. But, as has already been stated, most people don't really get involved in politics, and most of those who do, only do for a short time around election season. While most Americans can tell you who the President is, a good many would be hard-pressed to name the Vice President, and even fewer can name both their senators and their representative.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Tuesday, February 6th
114415 views

Challenge of New Jersey Restrictive

The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action ( #NRA-ILA ) today announced support for an important #SecondAmendment lawsuit filed today by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC). The lawsuit challenges New Jersey’s restrictive “may-issue” system for issuing #concealedcarrypermits. That system makes it all but impossible for law-abiding gun owners to receive a permit, which is required to lawfully carry a handgun in the Garden State.



“New Jersey’s draconian restrictions on carry permits effectively eliminate the constitutional right to keep and bear arms outside the home,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA. “Today’s lawsuit is an important step toward ensuring that law-abiding citizens have the full ability to protect themselves and their loved ones.” “We thank the NRA for its support and guidance, which made this lawsuit possible,” said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach.




In 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the District’s “may-issue” carry permit system, in the NRA-supported case Grace v. District of Columbia. The court found that “the individual right to carry common firearms beyond the home for self-defense — even in densely populated areas, even for those lacking special self-defense needs — falls within the core of the Second Amendment’s protections.” Rather than appeal the case to the Supreme Court and risk invalidating “may-issue” laws across the country, the District began issuing permits to all law-abiding applicants regardless of whether they can demonstrate a special need to carry a firearm. New Jersey’s system is essentially similar to the system struck down in Grace.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Tuesday, February 6th
114649 views

Pro-Gun Legislation

On Wednesday, February 7 2018, the #NewHampshire House will consider House Bill 1749 and Floor Amendment 0408H. Please contact your state Representative and politely urge them to support House Bill 1749 with Floor Amendment 0408H.



House Bill 1749 with Floor Amendment 0408H would provide an enforcement mechanism for existing law which prevents local municipalities and governments from implementing ordinances that would create a complex patchwork of gun regulations across the state.




The implementation of these ordinances makes it difficult for responsible firearm owners to ensure that they are following the law when traveling across the state.




This bill will ensure that local elected officials are held accountable to the law just as New Hampshire citizens are. Again, please contact your state Representative and politely urge them to support House Bill 1749 with Floor Amendment 0408H.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Monday, February 5th
114747 views

Aim Your Vote

Our #NRA is the biggest, loudest, most effective voice for upholding the #SecondAmendment . Though, in an ideal world none of us in should have to advocate for our God-given rights, as affirmed in the Second. I am committed to protecting our rights in a world that is, not as we wish it were. This is why I urge fellow NRA voting members to aim your NRA Board member vote.



We need the best NRA Board of Directors possible. Few major organizations allow “you” to have a say, like the National Rifle Association's by-laws do. NRA is the ONLY major Second Amendment organization that allows any individual member to run for the Board, and also allows for all eligible members to vote.
I serve on several national- and state-level boards and commissions, and this is the only one decided by members. You decide who runs, you decide who is elected. It is argued that the NRA Nominating Committee decides the candidates, but those committee members are there only because we elected them to the Board.




Their committee process augments, but does not exclude, a successful independent member petition effort. Col Allen West won election as a petition-only candidate. I’ve run both ways. Nominated in 2016, it was a loss but close enough to move onto the Board a year ago this month to fill a vacancy. Running by petition-only in 2017, you helped me win a two-year term. This makes me either an outside-insider, or an inside-outsider. I have written to you before about my NRA election journey on AmmoLand News.




The 35 candidates for 2018 include thirty nominated candidates, three nominated and petition candidates, and two petition-only candidates. We’ll elect 25 board members for three-year terms. NRA Life members and current members of five or more consecutive years receive their ballot in their Official NRA periodical (first-class mail for Hawaii only). If you are eligible and you do not receive a ballot, contact the NRA Membership office. Some 2.2 million members get ballots. Disappointingly, only about 7% (in 2017, 135,000 for 6.2%) of ballots are returned. If you are reading this, the NRA election is as important to you as any state or national election.




Here is what I ask of you: Read their bios to discern differences, also ask your friends, google their names, check their social media. We have very qualified and capable candidates. We do so much more than legislative advocacy and firearms training. It is valuable to have many varied backgrounds on the Board to address myriad NRA gold-standard functional areas. These include competitions, safety, youth, certification, collecting, shooting, legal, finance, self-defense, political and issue matters, hunting, conservation and quite a bit more, in addition to the well-known advocacy and training roles. We need the best people who will bring their commitment, expertise, and experience to the NRA Board.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Friday, February 2nd
116478 views

Constitutional Carry Re-Introduced

#Indiana Representative Jim Lucas has re-introduced a #ConstitutionalCarry bill in the Indiana legislature. In 2017, Lucas lead the fight to bring Constitutional Carry to Indiana. He was heavily opposed by the Indiana Media.



He fought back by proposing a bill to require professional journalists to be fingerprinted and submit an application to the state to be approved for a journalist license, in order to exercise their freedom of the press. It was a nice bit of satire, fighting back against an agenda driven media.
While the Constitutional Carry bill did not pass, a non-scientific poll at wane.com showed 84 percent in favor of the bill.




A legislative study committee recommended that the 2018 legislature “remove hurdles” to carrying a handgun. The vote was 15 -5 on 30 October, 2017. From nwi.com: INDIANAPOLIS — The General Assembly next year is likely to consider legislation to eliminate Indiana's licensing requirement for carrying a handgun in public. A legislative study committee on Monday recommended state lawmakers “should remove hurdles” that limit the ability of Hoosiers to exercise their constitutional rights relating to firearms.




The Joint Committee on Judiciary and Public Policy did not specifically call for ending handgun carry licenses. In fact, it urged the current license system be maintained for individuals who want a reciprocal license to carry in states that require licensing. On 11 January, 2018, HB 1022 was introduced. First reading on 11 January, the bill was referred to the Committee on Public Policy. Here is the summary of the bill.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Thursday, February 1st
115924 views

Gun Control Heresy in Australia

The sorry state of #gun #politics in #Australia was put into stark relief recently, after Liberal National Party (LNP) Queensland Legislative Assembly MP Anthony Perrett took a principled stand in favor of his constituents’ gun rights.



His bold moves to defend gun owners have earned Perrett an official rebuke from Queensland’s Australian Labor Party (ALP) government, who appear ready to malign anyone who dares question Australian anti-gun orthodoxy. Back in October, Perrett caused a stir when he defied his party’s leadership to vote with the Katter’s Australian Party and One Nation in an attempt to block a gun control measure. Under Australian law, firearms are categorized by configuration. The measure moved lever-action shotguns that have a capacity of five rounds or fewer from category A to category B, making them more difficult to obtain. The measure also moved lever-action shotguns with a capacity greater than five rounds to category D, effectively prohibiting the weapons.




Perrett then continued his support for gun owners early this year. In mid-January, Queensland Minister of Police and Corrective Services Mark Ryan of the governing ALP launched an attack on LNP’s Deputy Opposition Leader MP Tim Mander for some mildly pro-gun statements that were captured on video. According to an account from the Australian Associated Press, the March 2017 video shows Mander responding to a questioner that asked if he “would support licensed owners having access to semi-automatic rifles for sports or hunting.” Mander offered a diplomatic answer, stating, “If a case can be given to me that shows that there's a good rationale for that, and there's no increase in safety risks or some other risk to the community, I'm very open-minded about those type of things.”




Perrett rushed to Mander’s defense, calling Ryan’s attack “nothing more than chest beating and manufacturing an agenda.” Reiterating his own support for gun rights, Perrett explained, “I have always and will continue to support law-abiding weapons license holders, gun owners, primary producers and sporting shooters.” The MP went on to charge that the Queensland government is engaged in a crackdown on legitimate gun owners and that one of the ways in which it is doing so is by restricting the issuance of category H (handgun) licenses. Perrett said of the Queensland government.




They say that the rules haven’t changed but there is clear evidence that a ministerial directive has been given to the weapons licensing branch to make it harder for legitimate owners to access a tool of trade… All of a sudden licenses and renewals for Category H weapons are being consistently knocked back despite responsible, law-abiding owners having held and renewed them for decades without any incidents.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, January 31st
115812 views

Right to bear arms ignored

In an article about shall issue carry permits in #WashingtonDC , the authors, Peter Hermann and Peter Jamison, ignore half of the rights contained in the #SecondAmendment. It is rather odd, considering it is the main topic of their article. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the “may issue” law in D.C. specifically. Here is an excerpt from Wrenn that shows how strong the opinion is.



From Wrenn v. D.C.: Our first question is whether the Amendment’s “core” extends to publicly carrying guns for self-defense. The District argues that it does not, citing Heller I’s observation that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home. Id. at 628. But the fact that the need for self-defense is most pressing in the home doesn’t mean that self-defense at home is the only right at the Amendment’s core. After all, the Amendment’s “core lawful purpose” is self-defense, id. at 630, and the need for that might arise beyond as well as within the home. Moreover, the Amendment’s text protects the right to “bear”as well as “keep”arms. For both reasons, it’s more natural to view the Amendment’s core as including a law-abiding citizen’s right to carry common firearms for self-defense beyond the home (subject again to relevant “longstanding” regulations like bans on carrying “in sensitive places”). Id. at 626.




This reading finds support in parts of Heller I that speak louder than the Court’s aside about where the need for guns is “most acute.” That remark appears when Heller I turns to the particular ban on possession at issue there. By then the Court has spent over fifty pages giving independent and seemingly equal treatments to the right to “keep” and to “bear,” first defining those “phrases” and then teasing out their implications. See id. at 570-628. In that long preliminary analysis, the Court elaborates that to “bear” means to “‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” Id. at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting)). That definition shows that the Amendment’s core must span, in the Court’s own words, the “right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Id. at 592 (emphasis added).




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, January 31st
116071 views

Coiled Spring Precedent for Bump Fi

The public comment period is over for citizen input on proposed rulemaking on “‘ #BumpFire ’ Stocks and Other Similar Devices” by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. That means it’s too late to add findings from a Congressional Research Service assessment that was published last October, but deliberately withheld from public dissemination as a matter of standard practice.



I was just made privy to that paper, posted online by the Federation of American Scientists. That’s a group I’ve reported on before both for AmmoLand on and the War on Guns blog (and elsewhere), for issues ranging from ATF funding, to so-called “assault weapon” bans and more. Founded by former Manhattan Project scientists, the group takes it on itself to posts such reports because the CRS, essentially a Library of Congress issues “think tank” for federal legislators—does not generally make its reports available to the public, despite our tax dollars funding them. Attempts have been made in the past to change that through legislation, but “our” representatives have never been sufficiently motivated to share such information influencing their decision-making with their constituents.




That’s wrong, because we deserve to know why they come to some of the conclusions they do, and in this case, the paper highlighted a distinction more gun owners should have known about if for no other reason than to be able to argue precedent in the comments they submitted. “On December 13, 2006 … ATF … reclassified bump-fire systems like the Akins Accelerator as a machinegun, because it was equipped with a ‘coiled spring’ and initiated automatic fire with a single trigger pull,” the report states. “In an unpublished decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld ATF's decision.”




Conversely, “Other manufacturers submitted modified ‘bump-fire’ or ‘slide-fire’ stocks that did not include a ‘coiled spring’ or similar mechanisms to the ATF for classification,” the report notes. “From the ATF rulings discussed above, it appears that bump-fire stocks with ‘coiled springs’ and that initiate automatic fire with a single trigger pull are regulated as firearms under the NFA; however, modified stocks without any ‘automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs’ are not similarly regulated.”




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, January 31st
115415 views

Defending your 2A rights

When was the last time you went #shooting ? When was the last time you attended a Friends of #NRA dinner? When was the last time you did anything except complain about the NRA?



Last November gun owners joined together to stop Hillary Clinton. Her calls for a ban on all semi-automatic firearms, an Australian style mass buyback and forced registration leading to confiscation were what rallied many of us. So let me ask you a question. How many of you know and accept that Hillary’s views were not unique, but represent the actual views of the leadership in the Democrat party?




She’s never changed or renounced this position. Chuck Schumer is even worse. If in power, he intends to hammer guns out of existence with new legislation. So let me ask a question: what are you doing to help defend your right to own a firearm? (I’ll wait while you think about it.) Ok, I’ve waited. SO what are you doing to help defend the constitution? Reading Ammoland is a good start, but I was hoping for something more. I was hoping you’d get off your butt and fight to keep your rights. ONCE OUR RIGHTS ARE TAKEN, THEY ARE NEVER RETURNED.




Look at CA, and NY or NJ. Judges rule they’ve gone too far and they simply ignore the judge. There are 120,000,000 gun owners in the U.S. we need to shake off our apathy are stay active. Gun ownership is on the rise. We need to help new gun owners and support our community.




Three things you can do: Attend a Friends of NRA event. This link will help you find a local event Make sure your NRA membership is paid and up to speed. 40 million gun owners THINK they’ve paid their dues. Make sure yours are paid Vote in the next election. CHALLENGE your candidates on supporting gun rights Get off your butt and stop letting others carry your load. Only 119 million in total voted in 2016. There are 120 million-gun owners. A 5% increase in gun owner turn out, and we can preserve our rights and freedoms forever.




So I’ll say it again. Get off your butt and get active. If not you have no one but yourself to blame when Newson in CA or President Booker in DC come to confiscate your guns. Don’t tell me you’ll fight… you won’t. If you don’t have it in you to do something now, you’ll sit home if the heavy lifting ever comes. Be a patriot not when you can, when it’s easy.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, January 31st
115954 views

Challenging Standard Magazine Bans

In anticipation of proposed #NewJersey legislation limiting magazine capacity, Association of New Jersey #Rifle and #Pistol Clubs has joined a federal legal challenge to “large capacity” magazine bans currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Duncan v. Becerra made headlines back in July when a U.S. District Court judge temporarily blocked a California law banning and confiscating firearms magazines holding over 10 rounds of ammunition.
Currently on appeal to the infamous Ninth Circuit, the case is already deep in the federal court pipeline and poised to head toward the U.S. Supreme Court.

By joining a federal magazine ban case already in progress, Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs is ahead of the curve and helping to defeat hardware bans in advance of new legislation in the Garden State.

Read more about the Duncan case here. Read the judge's opinion blocking the ban here. Read the friend of the court brief which Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs joined here.

Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Tuesday, January 30th
116595 views

New Jersey Gun Rights

#Newjersey 's November's election outcome couldn't have been much worse. A national wave of pent-up liberal frustration swept over both New Jersey and Virginia. It was made worse in the Garden State by the vengeance of unions and other key voting blocs hurt by Governor Christie. The end result was loss of the governorship, larger #antigun majorities in the legislature, and an election night nail-biter for some #progun incumbents from traditionally safe districts.

And now, the aftermath. Higher taxes, impending sanctuary statehood, a taxpayer-funded state bank, and yes – a full frontal assault on the Second Amendment, euphemistically styled as a “conversation” about “common sense gun safety laws.”
But there will be no conversation, no common sense, and it won't be about gun safety – it will be about targeting the gun rights of honest citizens instead of punishing violent criminals.

We're going to see an aggressive push to limit magazine capacity, ban large caliber firearms, activate the “smart gun” law, tax gun ownership, regulate ammunition, reverse Governor Christie's carry improvements, mandate training, and all manner of schemes and contrivances to limit Second Amendment rights, and to harass and demonize law-abiding gun owners. What we won't see is any meaningful effort to severely punish violent gun criminals, or end the catch-and-release justice system that puts them back out on the street.

New Jersey's gun ban extremists are going to unleash eight years of pent-up frustration in a torrent of attacks that will rival what we saw in 2013. Except this time, the new Governor is all too willing to sign whatever comes his way New Jersey gun owners survived Governors Florio, McGreevey, and Corzine. Somehow, we will survive Governor Murphy too, but it's going to take everything we've got – everything. It's going to take our time, our energy, our faith, and our resources. We'll have to do battle publicly, privately, in the media, and in the courts. We'll have to persevere when it seems hopeless, fight when it seems unwinnable, and march fearlessly into battle, over and over, with the odds stacked badly against us.

Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Tuesday, January 30th
116207 views

Bump stock Regulation deemed illega

Civil rights advocacy organization#Firearms Policy Coalition ( #FPC ) submitted formal comments to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) regarding a regulatory proposal that would apply the definition of ‘ #machinegun ’ to so-called “bump fire stocks” and countless other devices.



In a letter sent by FPC President Brandon Combs, the group called the proposal “troubling” and said that it “raises serious constitutional concerns, including the violation of the separation of powers.” “The DOJ and BATFE clearly lack the statutory authority to re-define the targeted devices as ‘machineguns.’” But the gun rights group said that, if the government does re-classify so-called “bump stocks” and other devices to be “machineguns” under federal law, they would file a federal lawsuit that “would provide an excellent vehicle for the Supreme Court to re-visit and eliminate the made-up judicial construct of agency deference”—something many Supreme Court justices have signaled as an issue they may revisit soon.




FPC also said that the proposed ban would come at a high price. “These costs would necessarily include likely millions of dollars in BATFE implementation and enforcement costs, in addition to potentially millions of dollars in fending off the inevitable litigation arising from the serious constitutional and statutory violations engendered by this regulatory process,” FPC argued. “Moreover, American taxpayers would also likely be stuck with the bill for the plaintiffs’ attorneys fees and costs should the government fail in attempting to defend this illegal and unconstitutional action.”




After the October 1, 2017, mass shooting in Las Vegas, FPC released a statement saying that, even “in troubled and troubling times like these, we are honor-bound to stand united in defense of fundamental, individual liberties, in all cases, and in spite of the incalculable grief we feel for the victims of Las Vegas as fellow human beings.” In a subsequent statement FPC repudiated proposed bans on semi-automatic firearms and accessories, including “bump fire” stocks.




“All unconstitutional laws are unjust, illegitimate, and offensive to the rule of law—even if they are enacted in response to a very real tragedy. FPC opposes all restrictions on the acquisition, possession, carry, and use of common, semi-automatic firearms, ammunition, and accessories by law-abiding people.” Later in October, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra issued a news release declaring “bump stock” devices to be “multiburst trigger activators” and “illegal in California.” But FPC responded days later and said that it was Becerra’s statements that were “disingenuous at best and probably illegal.” Said FPC President Brandon Combs at the time, “Not only is Attorney General Becerra’s so-called ‘news release’ inaccurate and misleading, it is almost certainly an illegal underground regulation.”




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Tuesday, January 23rd
118007 views

CPL Permit Confidentiality

Last week, #Washington legislators introduced an #NRA -backed bill to protect the private, personal information of Washington's #concealed pistol license holders from public records requests.



Senate Bill 6173, sponsored by Senator Dean Takko (D-19), and House Bill 2329, sponsored by Representative Jim Walsh (R-19), would add clarifying language to Washington’s existing Public Records Act to ensure that concealed pistol licenses, along with any supporting documentation, are exempt from public disclosure.




This proposal remains consistent with the existing law's protection of records that contain individual, personal information- just as library cards and bus pass user information is also protected. As previously reported, Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson is currently conducting a legal review of whether the private, personal information of Washington’s Concealed Pistol License holders is subject to public disclosure. Your NRA submitted comments to the Washington Attorney General’s office in support of protecting CPL holders’ information, and will be advocating for SB 6173/HB 2329 throughout the 2018 legislative session to ensure this private information is protected.




Currently, Washington’s Public Records Act (PRA) and carry licensing law exempts from public disclosure all concealed pistol license applications and the information on applications, except as needed by law enforcement or corrections. The legislative intent of this exemption, along with other constitutional privacy concerns, mandates that CPL licenses should be protected in the same manner as applications since they also contain personally identifying information such as names and addresses.




Washington State already protects a wide variety of personally identifying information regarding other participants in government services and programs – such as public utility customers, patrons of public libraries, transit pass users, ride-sharing program participants, and many others. The privacy interests of CPL holders logically and reasonably align with these other protected classes.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Monday, January 22nd
118527 views

2018 Indiana Pro Gun Bills

With the #2018 #Indiana legislative session underway, a number of bills affecting your #SecondAmendment and hunting rights have been filed.



Senate Bill 20, introduced by state Senator Jim Tomes (R-49), will ensure that rifle hunting with pistol caliber cartridges is protected throughout Indiana.




Senate Bill 33, introduced by state Senators Jack Sandlin (R-36) and Tomes, will allow an individual who may legally possess a firearm to do so on school property if the person is an employee of, a volunteer of, or attending religious services at a house of worship that is located on the school grounds.




Senate Bill 198, introduced by state Senator Blake Doriot (R-12), will allow nonresident disabled veterans to obtain an in-state hunting and fishing license for use at specific veteran events.




Senate Bill 216, introduced by state Senators Sandlin and Tomes, will remove certain gun-free zones, improving the ability of law-abiding adults to defend themselves and their loved ones in public.




Senate Bill 237, introduced by state Senator Rodric Bray (R-37), will extend the duration of concealed carry licenses to five years.




Senate Bill 429, introduced by state Senator Bray, will remove a provision requiring applicants to pay an application fee in order to obtain a four year license to carry a handgun.




House Bill 1022, introduced by state Representative Jim Lucas (R-69), will allow a law-abiding adult to carry a handgun without first having to obtain a license. Your NRA will continue to follow the progress of these bills. Stay tuned to www.nraila.org and your email inbox for updates on these bills and other issues affecting your Second Amendment and hunting rights in Indiana.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Monday, January 22nd
118178 views

Stop New Hampshire Gun Bans

A few weeks ago we told you about HB 1749, which was introduced by State Representative JR Hoell (R-Merrimack 23) and 9 co-sponsors. HB 1749 is intended to stop illegal local #gunbans.



The bill had a public hearing on January 10. During the hearing, lobbyists for the Municipal Association conceded what we have been saying for years, that local units of government may NOT regulate, restrict or tax firearms in any way.




That in and of itself is a small victory. However, to truly vanquish these local gun bans, we need the penalties that are contained in HB 1749 because some local officials, like anti-gun, Jeff Peavey who Chairs the Lebanon School Board and Mark Fougere, Chairman of the Milford Board of Selectmen remain defiant and have vowed to continue their illegal gun bans. Furthermore, the Manchester Board of Alderman has turned over management of the Southern New Hampshire University Arena to out of state anti-gun actors who also are remaining defiant and pushing to keep their illegal gun ban.




It is outrageous that these rogue, anti-gun officials are objecting to the penalties contained in HB 1749.
The criminal code contains numerous penalties for corrupt public officials. I have some simple advice for these people: follow the law and you won't be subject to any penalties! The Municipal and County Government Committee has scheduled an executive session for 10 AM on Wednesday, January 24 2018 to consider the fate of HB 1749. This is when they will debate the bill among themselves and vote on it. You don't need to attend.




We have been informed that Representative Mark McLean (R-Hillsborough 44) intends to offer an amendment, 2018-0138h. We have asked our Counsel to review the amendment and it is a GOOD amendment which will make HB 1749 a BETTER bill. We are asking all NHFC members and supporters to contact the House Municipal and County Government Committee and urge them to replace HB 1749 with Representative McLean's amendment, 2018-0138h and then vote the bill “ought to pass”




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Friday, January 19th
118638 views

ATF loophole?

#FranklinArmory gets an A+ in marketing (for now). With one press release, they have blogs, forums, and social media buzzing with speculation about how its new product, the Reformation, is approved by the #ATF . Here’s the simple answer: it’s not.



,p>We reached out to Franklin Armory for comment and were told via phone and email that they will not be releasing any more information on the Reformation until SHOT Show. Multiple sources within the ATF have confirmed that there has been no approval for this product as a non-NFA firearm. This, of course, doesn’t mean that an approval won’t come in the future. Perhaps that is why Franklin Armory is waiting until SHOT Show. Also, the press release only claims that ATF confirmed that the product is not a “rifle.”




For now, we can only guess what unique feature(s) the Reformation has that makes it neither a rifle, shotgun, nor an NFA firearm based on their press release. Here’s what we know so far that is relevant to the legal analysis: The Reformation is a firearm, it has an 11.5-inch barrel, and it has a Magpul buttstock. We also know that Franklin Armory claims that it isn’t a rifle, a shotgun, nor an NFA firearm and that it is part of an “NRS” series of firearms with patent-pending “NRS” technology.




So, what could it be? How is this firearm not a rifle or a shotgun? Knowing what I know now, I think that the Reformation must be unique in its rifling, its trigger, and/or its stock. We also should look to the name because Franklin Armory names their products with acronyms that stand for something. For example, their two previous legally-creative products are the X0-26 pistol and their BFS trigger.




The XO-26 pistol had a forward pistol grip and wasn’t an NFA firearm (an AOW) because it was just over 26 inches (thus the “26” in the name). Their BFS trigger, which stands for Binary Firing System, allows a firearm to fire on both the pull and release of the trigger and is not a machine gun because it only fired one round per “operation” (pull and release) of the trigger.




Read More Courtesy of Recoil Web...

Wednesday, January 17th
119583 views

Disaster declarations potential att

#Pennsylvania Democrat Gov. Tom Wolf is getting heat over the prospect that an emergency declaration on the state’s opioid epidemic may target #firearms as a side effect.



Wolf signed a sweeping 90-day disaster declaration on Wednesday characterizing the state’s heroin and opioid problem a public health emergency, saying he was using “every tool at my disposal to get those suffering from substance use disorders into treatment, save more lives, and improve response coordination.” However, both gun rights lawyers in the Commonwealth and Republican lawmakers soon pointed out that state law provides a wide range of firearms restrictions during a declared emergency including carry bans in certain public areas and the prospect of gun confiscation.




“There is no reason why addressing this crisis should come at the expense of our Second Amendment rights,” said state Sen. Scott Wagner, R-York, who is mounting a campaign to challenge Wolf for his job in November. “The sloppiness of this declaration is another example of the incompetence of this administration, and calls into question whether this was a good faith effort from the Governor to help those suffering from addiction or just another thoughtless political ploy to silence the critics who’ve been saying hasn’t done nearly enough on the issue.”




Wolf’s office was quick to fire back Thursday, saying that disaster declarations are frequently issued by the state, such as in extreme weather, without affecting gun rights. “The governor’s declaration does not allow for law enforcement to confiscate firearms, and the governor worked with law enforcement to ensure that his actions to fight this epidemic have no impact on citizens and their firearm rights,” J.J. Abbott, a spokesman for Wolf, told the Public Opinion. “Any implication otherwise to score cheap political points around the greatest public health crisis in our lifetimes is flat-out wrong.”




Wolf, who at the time carried an “F” rating from the National Rifle Association, defeated Republican Gov. Tom Corbett in 2014 and, while he has signed at least one pro-sportsman bill which passed with veto-proof margins and promised to respect the gun rights of medical marijuana users in the state, he has also pledged to scuttle strong Second Amendment legislation and has thrown his support behind a drive to increase mandatory relinquishment of firearms after misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. As noted by the AP, Pennsylvania is the eighth state to declare a public emergency to combat the addiction crisis. Wolf’s office noted the declaration would let Commonwealth officials “override any current rules or regulations they perceive as hampering the state’s ability to address the opioid epidemic.”




Read More Courtesy of Guns...

Wednesday, January 17th
119397 views

Chris Christie signs bump stock ban

#NewJersey ’s outgoing Gov. #ChrisChristie gave his approval Monday to a ban on #bumpstocks in the state that critics say is redundant.



The proposal, S-3477/A-5200 passed the state legislature by a unanimous vote earlier this month and establishes the crime of possessing or selling a bump stock or trigger crank in New Jersey as a felony. The lame-duck Republican reportedly signed the bill among 100 others without comment in a move to clear his desk before leaving office Tuesday. Christie, who has repeatedly rejected gun control measures sent to him by state lawmakers, had previously said he was open to more regulation on the devices, arguing, “It’s an accessory. It’s not a gun law. A bump stock is not a gun.”




The measure modifies state law to make the use of bump stocks or trigger cranks a second-degree criminal offense in New Jersey, punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $150,000. Simple possession or sale of the devices themselves would be a third-degree felony, punishable by up to five years imprisonment and a fine of up to $15,000.




However, the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, the state’s NRA affiliate, argues the move doesn’t make anyone safer nor would it change the fact that bump stocks are already the subject of a de facto ban in the state under existing law. “Rushing the bill during the last few days of the Christie Administration, instead of waiting until Governor-elect Phil Murphy takes office, reinforces that gun ban politicians have been frustrated by their defeats over the past eight years and are chomping at the bit to unleash a fresh torrent of attacks on gun owners and sportsmen,” the group said in a statement.




The action in New Jersey follows in the wake of similar effort taken by Massachusetts and is the second state to prohibit the devices following their use in the Harvest Route 91 shooting in Las Vegas last October. “New Jersey’s move to take bump stocks off the streets is a win for the public safety of communities in the state,” said Nico Bocour, state legislative director with Giffords. “With Congress dragging its feet, states like New Jersey and Massachusetts are leading the way to ensure that bump stocks don’t fall into the wrong hands.”




Read More Courtesy of Guns...

Wednesday, January 17th
119474 views

Massachusetts bump stock turn in

Officials with the Commonwealth reached out to #Massachusetts #gunowners to caution them the clock is ticking to hand over any #bumpstocks or trigger cranks.



According to a statement by the Gun Owners’ Action League, the state’s National Rifle Association affiliate, letters have been going out from state regulators to licensed gun owners warning that the controversial devices are illegal after Feb. 1. The letter adds that those who have them will have a short time period to arrange for their surrender. “Retention of such a prohibited item beyond the 90 day grace period will expose the owner to criminal prosecution,” says Daniel Bennett, secretary of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety.




Under the new state law passed as part of a spending bill, those found guilty of possession of such devices could face anywhere from 18 months to life in prison and there is no provision to grandfather the accessories. “In our opinion this is an illegal and unconstitutional taking of property without compensation by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” says GOAL in a statement, advising they are weighing their options moving forward.




The state was the first to adopt a ban on the devices following their use in the Las Vegas Route 91 Harvest festival shooting that left 58 dead. Filling in for Republican Gov. Charlie Baker, Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito signed the measure into law just a day after the Commonwealth’s legislature forwarded the proposal to the governor’s office for consideration. Lawmakers rushed widely different bills through their respective chambers in October, only holding a token public hearing after the fact.




Under the ban’s framework, a bump stock is defined as a device that increases a gun’s rate of fire by using the recoil of the firearm “to generate a reciprocating action that facilitates repeated activation of the trigger.” Trigger cranks are classified as a device attached to a firearm that activates the trigger using a lever turned “in a circular motion,” with limited exceptions for guns such as Gatling guns which are specifically designed to use such a crank. During the bill’s legislative process, state Attorney General Maura Healey led a call from 33 state and territorial attorneys general to Congress to ban the devices.




The state is not alone in its regulatory expansion targeting bump stocks. Down the Eastern Seaboard in New Jersey, Gov. Chris Christie signed a ban in that state earlier this week which went into effect immediately. Bump stock owners in the Garden State have 90 days to surrender their once unregulated accessories or face as much as three to five years in prison.




Read More Courtesy of Guns...

Tuesday, January 16th
119901 views

Judicial Activism

#OpenCarry #Texas is an issues-based advocacy organization and, as such, does not endorse candidates for public office. It does advocate for the #SecondAmendment Rights of Texans and provides information, as appropriate, for the consideration of voters about the positions of candidates for office so that they may make informed decisions when casting their ballots.



It has been brought to the attention of Open Carry Texas that a candidate for the 322nd District Court position has, in a prior judicial capacity, engaged in judicial activism, issuing orders not requested by either party to the litigation and unsupported by evidence of record. The specific case involved a Michael Keith Ives, a party to divorce proceedings in Judge James Munford’s Family Court. The court order, issued on the Court’s own initiative, without motion by either party or supporting evidence, prohibited Mr. Ives from possessing or using firearms. Mr. Ives is an avid hunter and the order had the effect of preventing him from participating in that activity.




He was also prohibited from otherwise possessing firearms even though there was no evidence supporting a conclusion that Mr. Ives had in any way used or threatened the use of violence or firearms in any way against his spouse or children or would otherwise justify such an order. That order was overturned in subsequent judicial proceedings. Judicial activism such as this has a substantial chilling effect upon the rights of other litigants and casts doubt on the impartiality of the judiciary. Open Carry Texas supports the rule of law and urges voters who share those concerns to carefully evaluate the record of candidates for office, not merely their claims, especially those which merely claim to support the Second Amendment.




It appears that Judge Munford has issued other unsolicited orders involving parents’ rights to discipline children as is permissible under state law. Judge Munford’s opponent in the Republican Primary for the 322nd District Court Judgeship is Jennifer Moore, the attorney who represented Mr. Ives, and fought for his Second Amendment Rights. On her campaign website she pledges to render fair and consistent verdicts consistent with the law, exercise Judicial Restraint and Oppose Judicial Activism, respect and protect the First and Second Amendments. Open Carry Texas submits these issues for consideration when deciding on a candidate for the 322nd District Court position.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Tuesday, January 16th
119821 views

Stand Your Ground Law

As word gets out about #Wyoming #GunOwners plan to push Stand-Your-Ground law in the 2018 session, gun owners are getting excited! Thursday night, for example, the Park Co. #Republican Party proposed and unanimously passed a resolution calling on the legislature and Gov. Mead to pass Stand-You-Ground law this year.



A big ‘shout-out’ to Chairman Martin Kimmett and the other members of the committee, who passed this unanimously! Already we have heard from other counties who are in the process of trying to pass a similar resolution. If you are involved with Republican party politics at the county or state level and would like to pass a resolution in support of this bill, feel free to use this one.




This just tells us what we already know — gun owners in Wyoming are extremely excited about Stand-Your-Ground law and expect action in Cheyenne this session! The question is, will the legislature fight for gun owners and get this done this year, or will they stall and delay, as they have done for so many years in a row? One thing is certain, the status quo is over in Cheyenne, and WyGo members are demanding action!




In the coming days, we’ll be unveiling a brand-new ‘Action Center’ on our website, that will allow you to send a PRE-WRITTEN email to your elected officials -– all with just a few clicks of your mouse. More, if you use Facebook and Twitter, you’ll be able to message your officials right away, using PRE-WRITTEN messages that will automatically go to your legislators!




We will have much more on that in the days ahead. For now, you can help us in the following ways: First, make sure you’ve signed your petition for Stand-Your-Ground law here in Wyoming! Second, make sure that you are a member of Wyoming Gun Owners or that you’ve renewed your membership for 2018! Third, help us spread the word about this fight by sharing this email with every gun owner you know so they can join us in this fight.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Tuesday, January 16th
119821 views

17 Gun-Control Bills Disarmed

Overall it was an excellent day for #gunowners ! A large number of gun bills were heard in the Senate Courts of Justice Committee and the antis didn't fare very well. They got one bill through and it is going to Senate Finance, which is not a good place to be:
2 #progun bills moved forward. 1 pro-gun bill was carried over to next year. 2 pro-gun bills were withdrawn by the patron. 0 pro-gun bills were defeated by the committee. 17 anti-gun bills were defeated by the committee. 1 anti-gun bill moved forward (with 2 other identical bills rolled into it. The two pro-gun bills that moved forward were: 1) Senator Black's SB 48, Constitutional Carry, and 2) Senator Chase's SB 715, which allows firefighters and EMS to carry concealed while on duty with a CHP. Both bills were sent to the Senate Finance Committee, where we will have to fight for them again.




All but one of the gun-control bills, including Universal Background Checks which was being pushed hard, went down in flames. A couple of those votes were uncomfortably close as Republican Senator Stuart unexpectedly voted with the Democrats on those two bills. Except for the Fire/EMS concealed-carry bill, the Democrats, sadly, voted wrong on everything: Saslaw, Howell, Lucas, Edwards, Deeds, Petersen.




The one anti-gun bill that passed out of committee, a bump-stock ban bill, was greatly narrowed and is headed to the Senate Finance Committee, where there will be another chance to kill it. We will be watching that bill closely. The remaining Senate gun bills will be heard Wednesday, shortly after the Senate adjourns for the day. (Bob Sadtler and I will be there around 1 pm, but how long we might have to wait for the committee to meet is unknown.) If you wish to attend the hearing to show support, let me know.




The details of the bills heard today are below. Senator names in UPPER CASE crossed party-lines with their vote. For Republicans that means they voted incorrectly and for Democrats that means that they voted correctly. If your Senator is on the committee and voted wrong on one or more bills, a *polite* telephone call or email to them is in order! You should also thank those that voted correctly.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Tuesday, January 16th
119500 views

New Jersey Introduces Bill to BAN Y

With the take over of the #NewJersey Governors office by rabid #gun banning Democrat, Phil Murphy, the first attack on NJ #gunowners rights and property, of what will be many, has been launched. The proposed bill would ban most all the rifles and shotguns you currently own and legally bought under the current NJ laws.



Sponsored by state senator Senator Nia H. Gill this bill would “strengthen” the State’s current assault weapons ban by revising the definition of an “assault weapon” to include: rifles with detachable magazines and one military style feature; semi-automatic shotguns with one military style feature; and semi-automatic pistols with one military style feature.




The current definition of an assault weapon sets forth a list of prohibited firearms and specifically includes any firearm that is “substantially identical” to any of the enumerated firearms. Under State regulations, a semi-automatic firearm is to be considered substantially identical to an enumerated firearm if it meets certain criteria. This bill codifies these regulations while expanding the number of firearms that would be considered assault weapons by adding criteria and reducing the number of criteria that must be met from two to one. For example, under current regulations, a semi-automatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two listed criteria would be considered an assault weapon.




These criteria include: a folding telescoping stock, a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor;
and a grenade launcher. Under the bill, additional criteria are added including a thumbhole stock and a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand. The bill also requires that only one criteria be met, rather than the currently required two.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Wednesday, January 10th
121236 views

Possible Connecticut bump stock and

A legislative #ban on the purchase and sale of “rate of fire enhancements” in the state is the next planned addition to the state’s already strict #guncontrol laws. Gov. Dannel Malloy on Tuesday proposed the ban on binary trigger systems, bump stock, and trigger cranks with those found in possession of such devices subject to a Class D felony charge.



“Bump stocks are cheap, they are deadly, and they have no place in our society,” Malloy said in a statement, going on to slam what he termed federal inaction on the controversial accessories. “Our state has long been a champion in the fight against gun violence, and today we take a step towards further cementing our reputation as a leader in smart, safe, and commonsense gun reform.”




Malloy’s proposed legislation would create a definition of a “rate of fire enhancement” under state law as an accessory that uses the recoil impulse from a firearm to “generate a reciprocating action that facilitates repeated operation of the trigger,” with an exception for guns designed specifically to designed function with such a crank or lever. If passed into law, those in possession of a device that fits the new definition would be subject to a $90 fine on the first offense and up to 5 years in prison and a fine of as much as $5,000 on subsequent charges.




Malloy, a Democrat, signed expansions of the state’s assault weapon ban into law in 2013 following the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown and has consistently championed other gun restrictions to include massive fee hikes on pistol permits. His latest proposal has the support of several area gun control groups including the Newtown Action Alliance and Connecticut Against Gun Violence, as well as Moms Demand Action, who were on hand for Malloy’s press conference announcing the push.




However, Second Amendment advocates argue the move is “feel-good legislation” that would have little effect on your average gun owner, but still caution against any sort of prohibition. “You go down a rabbit hole in perpetuity, talking limitations on things that should or shouldn’t be banned,” said Scott Wilson of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, saying his group does not have a position on Malloy’s newest proposal as it’s language is not available. Bans on bump stocks have proven to be low hanging fruit in legislatures across the nation with both Massachusetts and New Jersey passing measures to outlaw the devices since their use in the Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting in Las Vegas last October. Lawmakers in almost a dozen other states are considering similar restrictions. A number of bills introduced at the federal level are still in committee.




Read More Courtesy of Guns...

Wednesday, January 10th
121205 views

Alabama possible to be a constituti

A state senator has filed legislation for the upcoming session to allow Alabamians to lawfully carry #concealed #handguns in the state without a #permit.



State Sen. Gerald Allen, R-Tuscaloosa, this week filed Senate Bill 3 with the aim of repealing a number of state statutes governing the carry of handguns. As such, the measure will remove restrictions on Second Amendment rights and bring the state in line with others who codify constitutional, or permitless, carry as the law of the land.




Allen’s proposal would keep Alabama’s current concealed carry permitting scheme administered by county sheriffs in place, but erase the requirement to obtain such a permit. Permit holders would retain the advantage of being able to buy a gun without an additional background check as well as reciprocal carry in the states that currently recognize Alabama’s permits. Open carry is already legal without a permit. A similar version passed the Senate last year but never made it out of the House despite strong Republican control of that chamber.




Neighboring states, such as Mississippi, already have permitless carry laws. Alabama only moved away from a more restrictive “may issue” concealed carry system in 2013 and since then the state’s sheriffs have fought repeatedly to stop carry expansions without a permit. Last year, at least one sheriff went on record saying he opposed the move on grounds that his department would lose out on cash raked in from permit fees. Another pinned constitutional carry to the prospect of more armed people at hate rallies.




The National Rifle Association stands by the measure, saying it would “allow law-abiding adults in Alabama to carry in a manner that best suits their needs and improves their ability to defend themselves and their loved ones from danger.” The legislation is currently assigned to the Senate Judiciary committee.




Read More Courtesy of Guns...

Wednesday, January 10th
121005 views

Raised pistol purchase permit scutt

A move that would have upped the costs for those wanting a #handgun in #Nebraska was tabled by lawmakers this week.



The proposal, LB 81, would have increased the fee for a handgun certificate in the state five-fold, from $5 to $25. The backers of the move argued the fee has remained the same since it was introduced in 1991 while the volume of permits has quadrupled in the last decade alone. In the end, lawmakers in the Nebraska Senate voted 27-17 to sideline the measure.




“I have discussed with many people in my district and throughout the state of Nebraska who can barely afford a firearm; who can’t afford a concealed carry permit; and who just want to be able to defend themselves and their family. And for a lot of those people who I’ve spoken with, an additional $20 does mean something,” said state Sen. Mike Hilgers a Republican.




The bill was introduced by Sen. Carol Blood, a Lincoln area Democrat who argued the increase was needed to pay for the growing number of background checks resulting from the demand for the certificates that are required to lease, purchase, rent or otherwise transfer a handgun in the state. A fiscal impact study by legislative offices found that Douglas and Lancaster Counties, among the highest populated in the state, stood to see an annual increase in fee revenue of $120,000 moving forward if the bill passed.




“We are ripping off taxpayers when we choose to not rise to the responsibilities we have in the Legislature to make sure fees cover the expenses that we ask our counties to carry,” said Blood.




Read More Courtesy of Guns...

Tuesday, January 9th
121259 views

Bad news for California Gun Owners

While most of America was busy preparing to celebrate the #NewYear, #gunowners in #California were scrambling to lawfully purchase ammunition while they still could. Beginning January 1 2018, all ammunition sales were required go through a California licensed dealer or licensed ammunition vendor. This new requirement is one of two new ammunition laws that were passed by the California legislature or adopted by California voters in 2016. The law that took effect on January 1 2018 will generally prohibit gun owners from bringing ammunition into the Golden State or from purchasing their ammunition online.




California adopted these new laws in spite of significant evidence that they would only burden law-abiding gun owners and do nothing to promote public safety. Most notably, the reporting of ammunition sales has already been tried — and failed — at the federal level. Throughout the 1980s, Congress considered repeal of a federal ammunition regulation package that required, among other things, reporting of ammunition sales. As a result, the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 repealed the ammunition restrictions, with little opposition to the removal of that requirement.




California gun owners are now stuck with a similar law that will also have “no substantial law enforcement value,” yet will make it much more difficult for Californians to buy ammunition, especially harder to find cartridges. Unfortunately, the new ammunition laws do not stop there. Beginning July 1, 2019, a background check will be required on every purchase of ammunition in California. It still remains unclear exactly how California intends to implement this law.




California gun owners looking for clear guidance on how to comply with these new ammunition laws could not look to the California Department of Justice, which failed to receive approval for its regulations implementing the new laws until two days after the law went into effect and over six months past the statutorily mandated deadline for implementing the regulations. NRA attorneys are currently preparing a lawsuit challenging the new ammunition laws, which will be finalized any day, making it our fourth lawsuit against the “gunmaggedon” package of bills. If you would like to stay updated on our legal and political work in California, please check the California Stand and Fight webpage for updates.




Read More Courtesy of Ammo Land...

Tuesday, January 9th
121957 views

Unlawful No Guns Policy Fixed

Member Mark Anderson, who is a #firearms instructor (Discover Shooting), went with a student to the new Fairfax Public Safety Building to assist the student in getting fingerprinted for an out-of-state permit. Upon arriving, Mark saw metal detectors and was advised that he couldn't bring his #gun in the building.



Mark asked the security guard (non-sworn, private security) what ordinance allowed such a prohibition. Unable to answer that question (of course), the guard relented somewhat and told Mark he could place his gun in a lockbox they had in the building. Due to time constraints, Mark complied and got in touch with me that evening.




I made some calls to the police and was told that Fairfax had an ordinance that allowed them to designate any government building as a gun-free zone. I knew that wasn't the case and ended up leaving a message for the Fairfax Chief of Police.
I didn't know when I'd get a return call from Chief Roessler, so I also called the County Attorney. She was busy, but returned my call about 10 minutes later. She was pleasant and professional. She said she would check into the matter and get back to me.




A little while later I got a call from a Major with Fairfax PD. The Chief had asked him to return my call. The Major agreed with my assessment that carry, both openly and concealed with a CHP, was lawful and said he would contact security right away to resolve the problem. No whining, no hedging, no delays. That's how a police department and a county attorney's office should be run. Fairfax County PD continues being on the top of my list for Virginia law enforcement agencies.




Read More Courtesy of AmmoLand...

Monday, January 8th
121303 views

SAFE Act pistol permit delays

With thousands of #NewYork ’s lifetime permit holders facing mandatory re-certification this month, some are calling on Gov. Cuomo to push back the deadline. The myriad of permits, required to own a modern #pistol or #revolver in the Empire State, are set to expire Jan. 31 under the provisions of the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, signed by Cuomo in 2013. However, with some county clerks reporting that most of their expiring permits have yet to be re-certified, Republican lawmakers want the time limit extended.



“Many pistol permit holders in my district have yet to receive the proper paperwork alerting them of the need to recertify,” said state Sen. Rob Ortt, R-North Tonawanda. “We must delay the deadline to avoid what will become a bureaucratic nightmare for residents, law enforcement and local officials.” Clerks across the state have warned that they have had a poor turnout on the free recertification process. In one county only about 1,550 out of 18,000 have completed the process. In another, just 5,000 out of 20,000.




Ortt was joined in his call by several county clerks as well as state Assemblymen Angelo Morinello and Michael Norris. The New York State Association of County Clerks has also asked Cuomo for clarification on a series of questions surrounding the permit issue including what happens to gun owners who fail to update their permits, to include possible court-ordered firearm confiscation. Niagara County Clerk Joseph Jastrzemski warned pistol owners with expired permits are in danger of a Class A misdemeanor, which can bring one year in jail or three years probation in addition to a $1,000 fine.




“Gov. Cuomo designed a flawed law five years ago, but even worse, he has failed to properly implement many of its provisions, leaving many law-abiding gun owners at risk of being made into criminals on Feb. 1 and losing access to their Second Amendment rights,” said Jastrzemski. In defending the SAFE Act’s provisions late last year, Cuomo steadfastly argued that New York “got it right” on gun control.




Read More Courtesy of Guns...

Friday, January 5th
122642 views

California Assault Weapons Regulati

Attorneys for 5 #California #gunowners and 4 civil rights advocacy organizations have filed for an injunction against the state’s Department of Justice regulations on so-called “assault weapons.” In the request for an injunction, the plaintiffs argue that “they, and many others similarly situated, will suffer irreparable injury if they are forced to comply with the registration requirement in accordance with the Challenged Regulations by the statutory deadline of June 30, 2018. In essence, they and many others would either be illegally forced to register or illegally denied the ability to register their firearms.”



Also filed was an amendment to the case, adding Craig Stevens as an individual plaintiff suing over the regulations. According to the filing, Stevens is “currently an active-duty member of the California Army National Guard, having the rank of Sergeant First Class (SFC), and is currently and as of December 23, 2017, deployed overseas to the Middle East.” Stevens has tried multiple times to comply with the DOJ regulations on “assault weapons,” but the DOJ rejected his application even though there was no legal basis for them to deny him the registration of his firearm.




“The declaratory and injunctive relief, and/or mandamus relief, sought in this action are necessary as set forth herein, to vindicate his right (and obligation), and the rights (and obligations) of others similarly situated, to register this legally-owned firearm as the only available means by which to maintain lawful possession of such firearms according to the DOJ’s regulatory scheme,” the court filing says. About the new filings, plaintiffs’ attorney George M. Lee explained, “As we show in our motion for an injunction, the State’s regulatory and enforcement scheme was designed and functions to separate law-abiding people from their rights, property, and statutory obligations. We seek in this case to make DOJ follow the same laws they impose on others – and protect law-abiding gun owners in the process.”




Raymond DiGuiseppe, co-counsel and former California deputy attorney general, agreed. “The Department of Justice has grossly exceeded their authority and is illegally imposing its will on thousands of California gun owners. Their regulations and actions undermine the rule of law and put potentially hundreds of thousands of people at risk for serious criminal liability. We look forward to resolving these issues as quickly as possible and protecting California’s law-abiding gun owners from this regulatory overreach.”




Read More Courtesy of AmmoLand...

Friday, December 29th
124057 views

Stop and Frisk of Gun owners

Today, attorney Joshua Prince of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C., filed an important amici curiae (“friends of the court”) brief in a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case that will impact #gunowners throughout the Commonwealth, including more than one million people who have been issued a license to carry a #concealedweapon in the state and millions more Americans who can legally carry there under a “reciprocity” agreement or state “open carry” rules.



“In this case, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will be deciding whether the mere open or concealed carrying of a firearm – in the absence of any criminal conduct – is sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct,” attorney Prince explained. “Simply put, the Supreme Court intends to decide whether law-abiding citizens can be harassed and interrogated by police for merely open or conceal carrying a firearm.”




The brief, submitted on behalf of numerous members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly as well as civil rights advocacy organizations Firearms Policy Coalition (“FPC”), Firearms Policy Foundation (“FPF”), and Firearm Owners Against Crime (“FOAC”), argues that “the mere open or conceal carrying of a firearm cannot establish reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal conduct” and that, otherwise, “the unintended consequences would result in law enforcement having reasonable suspicion to stop almost every person encountered, since most, if not all, objects possessed or utilized by citizens can be utilized either for lawful or unlawful purposes.”




“We believe that ‘stop-and-frisk’ policies that harass gun owners who carry for self-defense, like the one at the core of this case, are unconstitutional, bad public policy, and dangerous,” said FPC President and FPF Chairman Brandon Combs. “We were delighted to join and provide funding towards this important brief to protect the civil rights of millions of law-abiding gun owners.”




Read More Courtesy of AmmoLand...

Thursday, December 28th
123930 views

Californians stocking up on ammo

#California #gunowners are making a mad dash for #ammo, retailers report, ahead of Proposition 63’s looming deadline. Online ammunition retailer AmmoMan.com said sales have skyrocketed in the weeks leading up to January, with Californians snatching up 50 percent more ammunition than gun owners in other states.



“Californians are ordering more than customers in other states right now which suggests that they are stocking up,” Eric Schepps of AmmoMan.com told Guns.com in an email. “What is even more glaring is the number of folks coming to our site right now and buying as opposed to just shopping or reading content. The number of actual ammo buyers versus just shoppers is about double the normal rate for California visitors right now.”




Prop 63, backed by California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s as the “Safety for All” voter proposition, requires background checks prior to all ammunition sales in addition to a moratorium on direct internet sales. The measure states vendors must secure an annual permit in addition to placing requirements on dealers that state ammo be displayed in a manner that is not accessible to the public — such as in a locked cabinet. The legislation has caused backlash among the gun community with one small ammunition maker already out of business and other gun rights groups promising legal action over the initiative.




While 2A organizations go to bat for California gun owners, it seems Californians are wasting no time freely stocking up on ammo from vendors while they still can. Schepps said though AmmoMan’s business has seen a definite increase in sales volume, the company was well prepared for the influx even instituting new shipping operations to handle the flow. “We expected to see an uptick to California but to what degree is always sort of a guessing game. Right now we’re continuing to see it ramp up and personally, this is busier than what I expected,” Schepps said. “We’ve staffed up and actually just launched some big changes that includes a second operation that allows us to reach the majority of the West Coast faster. So, now we deliver in two days or less to 97-percent of the country.”




The usual suspects, 9mm and .223 Remington, have claimed the top spots with 12 gauge and .45 ACP rounding out the most sought after calibers in AmmoMan’s online arsenal. Californians have just a few more days to stock up before Prop. 63 officially takes effect on Jan. 1.




Read More Courtesy of Guns...

Thursday, December 28th
124195 views

Supreme Court Gun Rights Decesions

#SecondAmendment litigation saw important gains in the restoration of #gunrights, but also significant reverses in other areas at both the federal and state level.



Just hours before a ban on grandfathered “high capacity” magazines was to take effect in California, a federal judge found a host of flaws with the pending ban and put it on hold. In December, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a challenge to Maryland’s assault weapon ban. At stake in Kolbe v. Hogan was the 2013 Maryland law signed by staunch anti-gun Democrat Gov. Martin O’Malley that banned guns deemed “assault weapons” due to cosmetic characteristics and limited magazine capacity to 10 rounds. The backers of the lawsuit, to include 21 state attorneys general and several gun rights groups, argued the firearms subject to the Maryland ban are protected under existing case law related to arms lawfully carried in common use.




The U.S. Supreme Court in January turned away a challenge to the concealed carry permitting system in Illinois brought by gun owners who say they were refused permits and offered no explanation by the state for their denial. Likewise, the court upheld California’s strict concealed carry permitting practices – leaving conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch to cry foul. In a win for campus carry advocates, a federal court in Texas dismissed a lawsuit brought by a trio of university professors who argued the carry of guns in their classes would chill discussion, thus hindering their right to free speech.




A three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit said in June that California’s allocation of $5 of the $19 fee on firearms transfers to fund efforts to collect guns from those the state deems no longer able to possess them is constitutional. The state argued that the use of the money to fund a gun confiscation program was a “common sense connection” between the payment of a fee to ensure that people who want firearms in California and the “use of that fee to recover firearms from persons who become prohibited from possessing them.” Meanwhile, another California practice, that of a mandatory 10-day waiting period on all firearms purchases, was challenged to the U.S. Supreme Court on grounds that it is a violation of the Second Amendment.




Chicago’s efforts to keep gun ranges out of the city was rebuffed by the U.S. 7th Circuit in January who found the Windy City’s regulations on such businesses unconstitutional. In a decision handed down by the U.S. 9th Circuit, a panel held that local governments could regulate the sale of firearms and that the Second Amendment does not protect the ability to engage in gun sales. The ruling came in a challenge to an Alameda County law barring gun stores within 500 feet of residential properties which effectively prohibited new shops in the area.




Read More Courtesy of Guns...

Thursday, December 28th
124268 views

Georgia Gun Laws

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION - Article 1, Section 1, Paragraph VIII.


“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.”




Gun Laws Overview


RIFLES & SHOTGUNS - HANDGUNS


  • Permit to Purchase No - No

  • Registration of Firearms No - No

  • Licensing of Owners No - No

  • Permit to Carry No - Yes


The list and map below are included as a tool to assist you in validating your information. We have made every effort to report the information correctly, however reciprocity and recognition agreements are subject to frequent change. The information is not intended as legal advice or a restatement of law and does not include: restrictions that may be placed on non-resident permits, individuals under the age of 21, qualifying permit classes, and/or any other factor which may limit reciprocity and/or recognition. For any particular situation, a licensed local attorney must be consulted for an accurate interpretation. YOU MUST ABIDE WITH ALL LAWS: STATE, FEDERAL AND LOCAL.




STATE STATUS


  • Castle Doctrine - Enacted

  • No-Net Loss - Enacted

  • Right to Carry Confidentiality - Provisions Enacted

  • Right to Carry in Restaurants - Legal

  • Right To Carry Laws - Shall Issue

  • Right To Carry Reciprocity and Recognition - True Reciprocity

  • Right to Keep & Bear Arms State Constitutional Provisions - With Provisions




Laws on Purchase, Possession and Carrying of Firearms


Carry: Pursuant to Georgia Code 16-11-126(a), any person who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun or long gun may have or carry on his or her person a weapon or long gun on his or her property or inside his or her home, motor vehicle, or place of business without a valid weapons carry license.


Reciprocity: A person licensed to carry a handgun in any state whose laws recognize a Georgia license is authorized to carry a handgun in Georgia, but only while the licensee is not a Georgia resident. The license holder shall carry the handgun in compliance with Georgia laws. Georgia Code 16-11-129(e) and Read More About Georgia Code....


* Virginia and Wisconsin recognize only those Georgia licenses issued to persons 21 years of age or older. Georgia recognizes all Virginia and Wisconsin licenses.


National Firearms Act "Firearms": Georgia Code 16-11-122 and 16-11-124(4) prohibit the possession of a short barreled rifle or shotgun, silencer, explosive device, or machine gun.1


Exempt from this prohibition are persons authorized to possess such an item because he has registered it in accordance with the National Firearms Act. Also exempt is any such item that has been modified to the extent that it is inoperative - an example of the requisite modification is a weapon with the barrel “filled with lead.”


Miscellaneous Provisions: It is unlawful to: point a firearm at another person; discharge a firearm within 50 yards of a public highway or street; discharge a firearm on the property of another person without the property owner’s permission; possess a firearm during the commission of most crimes; while hunting, use a firearm in a manner that endangers another person; or discharge a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.


Preemption: Georgia Code 16-11-173 prohibits a county or municipal corporation, from regulating in any manner, by zoning, ordinance, resolution, or other enactment, gun shows, the possession, ownership, transport, carrying, transfer, sale, purchase, licensing, or registration of firearms, components of firearms, firearms dealers, or dealers in firearms components.


Purchase and Possession: No state permit is required for the purchase or possession of a shotgun, rifle, or handgun.


Range Protection: No sport shooting range shall be or shall become a nuisance, either public or private, solely as a result of changed conditions in or around the locality of such range if the range has been in operation for one year since the date on which it commenced operation as a sport shooting range. Subsequent physical expansion of the range or expansion of the types of firearms in use at the range shall not establish a new date of commencement of operations.


Footnote 1: Georgia Code 16-11-121 has an unusual definition of machine gun: “. . . any weapon which shoots or is designed to shoot, automatically, more than six shots, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” Regardless of Georgia’s definition, federal law strictly governs, among many other things, weapons which fire more than one shot by a single function of the trigger.


Footnote 2: For the purposes of Georgia Code 16-11-132(a), a handgun is considered loaded if there is a cartridge in the chamber or cylinder of the handgun.




Read More Courtesy of NRA-ILA....

Wednesday, December 27th
124530 views

2018 Gun Politics

Let’s start this off with a fact about #American politics: There are no laurels, and we who support #gunrights do not get to rest. #Gun laws and the free exercise of the relevant rights have ebbed and flowed over the course of our history, and while those motions used to take a long time to work themselves out, in recent decades, we’ve seen the passage and then sunset of the federal ban on “assault weapons,” the growth in the number of states that respect the right to carry, and the increase in violations in a handful of states.



Recognizing, then, that things can change rapidly, there are two approaches that we need to take in the promotion of gun ownership and carry nationwide. The first of these involves gains that can be made in the short term, while the second looks farther into the future.




One example of an immediate gain that we could make is national carry license reciprocity. House Bill 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, has passed and been sent on to the Senate, having taken most of the year to get that far. Should we be grateful? Given the number of Republicans who have run on the promise of protecting gun rights, I have to ask what has taken so long. Honoring nationwide the licenses that states issue is an obvious move. The bill to remove suppressors from the restrictions in the National Firearms Act of 1934 got stalled after the Las Vegas shooting, even though the one had nothing to do with the other. On the other hand, attempts to ban bump stocks and “assault weapons” are also languishing, fitting in with the general pattern of getting paid to do not much.




I’m not going to blame Congress here. Employees generally do what they’re asked to do, and when they’re allowed to drift without consequence, that’s not their fault. Their bosses are to blame. In the case of our elected representatives, that puts the responsibility on each one of us. Admittedly, there are times when doing nothing is the best choice, but when we’re talking about rights, defending their free exercise is always important. We all must tell the politicians whose jobs we can affect that unless they support gun rights, we’ll hire someone else. The Roman senator Cato is said to have finished every speech, regardless of the topic, with Carthago delenda est (Carthage must be destroyed), and whether that is legend or fact, it’s a good policy.




Read More Courtesy of AmmoLand...

Wednesday, December 27th
124899 views

Florida Gun Laws

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION - Article 1, Section 8.


“(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by #law. (b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any #handgun. For the purposes of this section, “purchase” means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and “handgun” means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in #Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph. (c) . . . anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony. (d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun.” Article 1, Section 8.

The legislature of the State of Florida, in a declaration of policy incorporated in its “Weapons and Firearms” statute, recognizes that adult citizens of the state retain their constitutional right to keep and bear firearms for hunting and sporting activities and for defense of self, family, home, and business and as collectibles.


Gun Laws Overview


RIFLES & SHOTGUNS - HANDGUNS


  • Permit to Purchase No - No

  • Registration of Firearms No - No

  • Licensing of Owners No - No

  • Permit to Carry No - Yes




The list and map below are included as a tool to assist you in validating your information. We have made every effort to report the information correctly, however reciprocity and recognition agreements are subject to frequent change. The information is not intended as legal advice or a restatement of law and does not include: restrictions that may be placed on non-resident permits, individuals under the age of 21, qualifying permit classes, and/or any other factor which may limit reciprocity and/or recognition. For any particular situation, a licensed local attorney must be consulted for an accurate interpretation. YOU MUST ABIDE WITH ALL LAWS: STATE, FEDERAL AND LOCAL.




STATE STATUS

  • Castle Doctrine - Enacted

  • No-Net Loss - Enacted

  • Right to Carry Confidentiality - Provisions Enacted

  • Right to Carry in Restaurants - Partial Ban

  • Right To Carry Laws - Shall Issue

  • Right To Carry Reciprocity and Recognition - True Reciprocity

  • Right to Keep & Bear Arms State Constitutional Provisions - With Provisions




Laws on Purchase, Possession and Carrying of Firearms


Purchase and Possession:No state permit is required to possess or purchase a rifle, shotgun or handgun. It is unlawful for any convicted felon to have in his or her care, custody, control, or possession any firearm or to carry a concealed weapon unless his civil rights have been restored.


Carrying: Unless covered under the exceptions listed below, it is unlawful to openly carry on or about the person any firearm, or to carry a concealed firearm on or about the person without a license. A first time carry license will cost $70. A renewal license will cost $60.


Antiques and Replicas: Unless used in the commission of a crime, the term firearm shall not include an antique firearm. An antique firearm is any firearm manufactured in or before 1918 (including any matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar early type of ignition system) or replicas thereof, whether actually manufactured before or after the year 1918, and also any firearm using fixed ammunition manufactured in or before 1918, for which ammunition is no longer manufactured in the United States and is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade.


Machine Guns: The possession of a machine gun, defined as any firearm which shoots, or is designed to shoot, automatically, more than one shot without manually reloading, by a single function of the trigger, is prohibited unless lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law.


Range Protection: A person who operates or uses a sport shooting range is not subject to an action for nuisance, and a court of this state shall not enjoin the use or operation of a sport shooting range on the basis of noise or noise pollution, if the range is in compliance with any noise control laws or ordinances that applied to the range and its operation at the time of construction or initial operation of the range.


Miscellaneous:
Under Florida law, there is no “duty to retreat” if you are attacked in any place you have a lawful right to be. Instead, you may stand your ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.




Read More Courtesy of NRA-LIA

Tuesday, December 26th
124770 views

Delaware Gun Laws

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION - Article 1, §20.


“A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for hunting and recreational use.”


#Delaware #GunLaws Overview
RIFLES & SHOTGUNS - HANDGUNS

  • Licensing of Owners No - No

  • Permit to Carry No - Yes

  • Permit to Purchase No - No

  • Registration of #Firearms No - No


The list and map below are included as a tool to assist you in validating your information. We have made every effort to report the information correctly, however reciprocity and recognition agreements are subject to frequent change. The information is not intended as legal advice or a restatement of law and does not include: restrictions that may be placed on non-resident permits, individuals under the age of 21, qualifying permit classes, and/or any other factor which may limit reciprocity and/or recognition. For any particular situation, a licensed local attorney must be consulted for an accurate interpretation. YOU MUST ABIDE WITH ALL LAWS: STATE, FEDERAL AND LOCAL.


STATE STATUS

  • Castle Doctrine - No Law

  • No-Net Loss - No Legislation

  • Right to Carry Confidentiality - No Provisions

  • Right to Carry in Restaurants - Legal

  • Right To Carry Laws - Rights Restricted-Very Limited Issue

  • Right To Carry Reciprocity and Recognition - Conditional Recognition

  • Right to Keep & Bear Arms State Constitutional Provisions - With Provisions


The list and map below are included as a tool to assist you in validating your information. We have made every effort to report the information correctly, however reciprocity and recognition agreements are subject to frequent change. The information is not intended as legal advice or a restatement of law and does not include: restrictions that may be placed on non-resident permits, individuals under the age of 21, qualifying permit classes, and/or any other factor which may limit reciprocity and/or recognition. For any particular situation, a licensed local attorney must be consulted for an accurate interpretation. YOU MUST ABIDE WITH ALL LAWS: STATE, FEDERAL AND LOCAL.


CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY NOTES: Colorado, Florida, Maine, and Michigan recognize Delaware RESIDENT permits ONLY. DELAWARE recognizes Idaho and South Dakota ENHANCED permits only, and only North Dakota CLASS 1 permits. http://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/criminal/concealed-carry-deadly-weapons-ccdw/




Laws on Purchase, Possession and Carrying of Firearms


Antiques and Replicas:
Any firearm manufactured before 1899 or any replica of such firearm that does not fire fixed ammunition or uses fixed ammunition no longer manufactured in the U.S. and which is no longer readily available in the ordinary channels of commerce is exempt from the background check for purchasers, however, it is a firearm for all other purposes.


Machine Guns:
Possession of a machine gun or any other firearm or weapon, which is adaptable for use as a machine gun, is a felony. Persons may possess machine guns for scientific or experimental research and development purposes provided such machine guns have been registered under the provisions of the National Firearms Act.

The provisions regarding machine guns do not apply to members of the military forces or to members of a police force in Delaware authorized to carry machine guns.



Miscellaneous Provisions:
It is a felony to knowingly transport or possess any firearm manufactured after 1973 on which the serial number has been altered or obliterated.



Purchase:
It is lawful for a person residing in this State to purchase or otherwise obtain a rifle or shotgun in a State contiguous to this State and to receive or transport such rifle or shotgun into this State, subject however, to such other laws of the State or its political subdivision as may be applicable.



Possession:
There is no state licensing requirement for the possession of a rifle, shotgun, or handgun.



Preemption:
Municipal governments shall enact no law restricting or licensing ownership, transfer, possession, or transportation of firearms or ammunition.



Range Protection:
Nuisance suits cannot be brought against any shooting range or hunting operation that has been in operation for at least a year if such properties did not constitute a nuisance when operations commenced.



Read More Courtesy od NRA-ILA....

Friday, December 22nd
125452 views

Connecticut Gun Laws

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION - Article 1, Section 15.


“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”


#Gun Laws Overview


RIFLES & SHOTGUNS - HANDGUNS


  • Licensing of Owners Yes* - Yes

  • Permit to Carry No - Yes

  • Permit to Purchase Yes - Yes

  • Registration of Firearms Yes** - No


*After April 1. 2014 a long gun "eligibility certificate" is required.



** "Assault Weapons".


The list and map below are included as a tool to assist you in validating your information. We have made every effort to report the information correctly, however reciprocity and recognition agreements are subject to frequent change. The information is not intended as legal advice or a restatement of law and does not include: restrictions that may be placed on non-resident permits, individuals under the age of 21, qualifying permit classes, and/or any other factor which may limit reciprocity and/or recognition. For any particular situation, a licensed local attorney must be consulted for an accurate interpretation. YOU MUST ABIDE WITH ALL LAWS: STATE, FEDERAL AND LOCAL.


STATE STATUS


  • Right To Carry Laws - Discretionary/Reasonable Issue

  • Castle Doctrine - Enacted

  • Right to Carry Confidentiality - Provisions Enacted

  • Right to Carry in Restaurants - Legal

  • Right To Carry Reciprocity and Recognition - None

  • Right to Keep & Bear Arms State Constitutional Provisions - With Provisions




Laws on Purchase, Possession and Carrying of Firearms


"Assault Weapons":
No person shall possess any "assault weapon" unless that person possessed that firearm before October 1, 1993 and received a certificate of possession from the Connecticut State Police prior to July 1994. The commissioner of public safety shall maintain a file of all certificates of transfer at the central office.


Carrying:
A permit to carry a pistol or revolver is required to carry a handgun on or about one’s person, either openly or concealed, or in a vehicle. However, the Connecticut Board of Firearms Permit Examiners (which reviews denials and revocations of permits) cautions that "every effort should be made to ensure that no gun is exposed to view or carried in a manner that would tend to alarm people who see it."


Miscellaneous Provisions:
A person must report the loss or theft of any firearm to the local police department within 72 hours of when such person discovered or should have discovered the loss or theft. Any person who fails to make the required report within the required time period shall commit an infraction and be fined not more than $90.00 for a first offense and be guilty of a class D felony for any subsequent offense. A person who violates this law for the first offense does not lose a person's right to hold or obtain any firearm permit.


Possession:
A person must be twenty-one years of age to possess a handgun.


Preemption:
Generally a local government is preempted from regulating a subject matter when a state has demonstrated an intent to occupy the entire field of regulation in that area or when the ordinance at issue irreconcilably conflicts with a state law. Dwyer v. Farrell, 475 A.2d 257, 261 (Conn. 1984). Essentially absent a direct conflict with state law, broad local firearms and ammunitions regulation is possible.


Purchase:
Prior to April 1, 2014 no sale, delivery, or other transfer of any long gun shall be made until the expiration of two weeks from the date of the application. Current exceptions include federal marshals, parole officers, or peace officers.




Read More Courtesy of NRA-ILA....

Thursday, December 21st
125797 views

Current Gun Laws in Colorado

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION - Article II, Section 13. “The right of no person to keep and #beararms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying #concealedweapons.”



Gun Laws Overview
RIFLES & SHOTGUNS - HANDGUNS
Permit to Purchase No - No
Registration of Firearms No - No
Licensing of Owners No - No
Permit to Carry No - Yes*
*Permit to Carry Concealed.




STATE STATUS
Castle Doctrine No Law
No-Net Loss No Legislation
Right to Carry Confidentiality Provisions Enacted
Right to Carry in Restaurants Legal
Right To Carry Laws Shall Issue
Right To Carry Reciprocity and Recognition True Reciprocity
Right to Keep & Bear Arms State Constitutional Provisions With Provisions




Antiques and Replicas
State law is silent on this matter. They are treated as ordinary firearms for possession and carrying purposes.




Carrying
It is unlawful to carry a firearm concealed on or about one's person without a permit, except for a person in his or her own dwelling, place of business, or on property owned or controlled by him or her.




Machine Guns
A machine gun is defined as any firearm that shoots automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. It is unlawful to possess a machine gun, but it is an affirmative defense to a charge of possession if the person accused was a peace officer or member of the armed forces acting in the lawful discharge of his or her duties, or that the person has a valid permit and license for possession of a machine gun.




Read More Courtesy of NRA ILA...

Thursday, December 21st
125931 views

Possible Reversal on the 9th Circui

Today, plaintiffs in a long-running #SecondAmendment lawsuit challenging the State of California’s 10-day “waiting period laws” for #firearm transfers have filed a brief at the United States Supreme Court urging the Justices to take up the case or issue a summary reversal of the 9th Circuit’s decision. The case, captioned Jeff Silvester, et al. v. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, seeks to overturn a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision and clarify the standards that all lower courts should use when reviewing Second Amendment lawsuits. Since the Supreme Court’s landmark McDonald v. Chicago decision, state and federal courts throughout the country have used wildly different approaches in scrutinizing laws that burden or eliminate the right to keep and bear arms.



The Plaintiffs and Petitioners’ reply brief, authored by Supreme Court and appellate attorney Erik. S. Jaffe of Washington, D.C., opens by pulling no punches: “After a waiver, a [call for response], and an extension of time, the [State’s] Brief in Opposition illustrates perfectly the contempt into which the Ninth Circuit has brought this Court’s precedents. A candid response would have confessed error and moved on. The response filed by the California Attorney General instead demonstrates a near complete lack of concern for precedent, procedure, or the risk of correction by this Court.”




The brief goes on to draw a comparison with the Hans Christian Anderson classic novel The Emperor’s New Clothes. “In the Ninth Circuit, the government no longer bears the burden of proof as a practical matter, speculation and conjecture now trump a trial court’s thorough and detailed findings of fact, and, we are told, the government deserves deference regarding legislative and social ‘facts’ even where there is no evidence that it reviewed or considered such supposed facts….We can either go along with the fiction of constitutional scrutiny – what lovely garments you have, oh west-coast emperors – or we can candidly acknowledge that the imperial Ninth Circuit has no constitutional clothes.”




“If the Supreme Court were to allow the Ninth Circuit to continue ignoring its precedents and abandoning longstanding principles of law, then a real crisis of confidence in the integrity of the courts may yet be on the horizon,” said Brandon Combs, an individual plaintiff in the case as well as the executive director of institutional plaintiff The Calguns Foundation. “We are cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court will use this excellent case as a vehicle to re-establish order among the nation’s lower courts and remind them that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right.”




“On behalf of all of us at The Calguns Foundation, we want to thank our supporters for their generosity in seeing this case all way through this Supreme Court briefing, the amici who invested time and treasure in their own briefs, and especially lead plaintiff Jeff Silvester,” commented CGF Chairman Gene Hoffman. “Jeff has not only been a perfect plaintiff, he has showed the courage of millions of California gun owners unwilling to give up.” The case is scheduled to be considered during the Court’s January 5 conference. A copy of the Silvester petition and briefing can be viewed or downloaded on their website.




Read More Courtesy of AmmoLand...

Tuesday, December 19th
126136 views

South Carolina City Set to Ban Bump

If #LasVegas were taking bets on which city would be the first in the nation to ban #bumpstocks the liberal havens of Portland, Chicago, or some town in the North East would come to mind. Southern cities would not be on the list of favorites, but that is precisely the action that might happen today in Columbia, South Carolina.


The Columbia City Council in the Capital of South Carolina is set to vote to make bump stocks illegal to possess within the city limits. Mayor Steve Benjamin, who claims to support the Second Amendment Of The U.S Consitution, told Reuters “One of the common refrains that you hear whether it was in Texas or Vegas or Sandy Hook is that a good guy with a gun could have stopped the carnage,” he said over the phone. “It’s time for the good guys with guns to begin to pass some really good policy.”


Benjamin in the past has made the dubious claim that bump stocks turn semi-automatic rifles into fully automatic weapons. It seems like the City Council is also basing its decision on this wrong assumption. Of the six city council members, four have stated their support for the ordinance during its first reading.


South Carolina has a state law that prohibits cities from enacting ordinances that regulate guns, ammunition, and gun parts. This ordinance on the surface seems to violate this state law, but according to Benjamin, it does not run afoul of the law.


Benjamin explained that he does not consider bump stocks to be gun parts. Moreover, the Mayor does not believe any trigger enhancing device to be a gun part. The Mayor's definition would include any part that could be used to speed up the rate of fire of a firearm. This description would also consist of things like binary triggers. The mayor says these gun parts are actually “gun attachments.”


All these “gun attachments” would be banned under the new city ordinance. This changing of the definition of gun parts might fall on shaky legal ground for the city if challenged in court. The mayor states that he is a gun owner and The City Council supports the Second Amendment right to bear arms. He also says that he has the support of local law enforcement on the issue of the banning of bump stocks and similar devices.


There are already some states that ban bump stocks including California and New York. Several other states could potentially bar bump stocks under their “assault weapons” ban. These include the very left-leaning city of Washington, DC, and Maryland.


Earlier this month the ATF and the Department Of Justice decided to review whether bump stocks make a semi-automatic rifle a machine gun. Jeff Sessions supports the review and seems to lean towards reclassifying bump stocks. He said in a statement, “The regulatory clarification we begin today will help us to continue to protect the American people by carrying out the laws duly enacted by our representatives in Congress.”


The technology branch of the ATF has told Congress on multiple occasions that bump stocks do not fall under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Like Columbia, South Carolina the ATF could always change the definition of a word to fit their narrative and ban a device that has only been used by a single madman in a single crime.


In the end, this issue comes down to emotion. Analytically there is no reason that bump stocks should be banned. Also factually they are a gun part, so state law prevents Columbia passing the ordinance. It will be interesting to see how the ordinance which appears to be on its way to passing holds up in a court of law.


Read More Courtesy of AmmoLand....

Tuesday, December 19th
126096 views

North Dakota Ruling Approved Consti

NorthDakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem issued an opinion clarifying that the #constitutional #carry law enacted by House Bill 1169 does indeed allow for the carrying of loaded firearms in vehicles by law-abiding residents without needing to first obtain a firearm carry license.


Previously, when this question was raised, Representatives Todd Porter, Rick Becker, and Shannon Roers-Jones along with Senator Kelly Armstrong requested an official opinion from the Attorney General.


HB1169 allows any person who is legally eligible for a Class 2 firearm carry license and who has possessed a valid North Dakota driver’s license or ID card to carry a concealed firearm without needing to first obtain the firearm carry license.


However, existing state law prohibiting loaded firearms in vehicles only specifically exempted firearms carried under concealed carry permits, prompting the question about whether constitutional carry applied in vehicles. Attorney General Stenehjem ruled that a North Dakota driver’s license or ID card “is the equivalent” of a concealed carry permit, so constitutional carry qualifies for the exemption to the prohibition against loaded firearms in vehicles.


Your NRA would like to thank Attorney General Stenehjem and the legislators involved for resolving the issue and ensuring that North Dakota residents have the same right to self-defense in their vehicles as they do elsewhere.
Stay tuned to www.nraila.org and your email inbox for further updates on issues affecting your Second Amendment rights.


About:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org


Read More Courtesy of AmmoLand....

Tuesday, December 19th
126920 views

California Court Blocks Magazine Ba

The battle to secure Second Amendment rights is ever-evolving. On Monday, #gun owners were dealt a disappointing blow with the Supreme Court’s refusal to review the legal scheme that empowers #California counties to effectively #ban the bearing of arms (see related article). Yet by Thursday, Second Amendment advocates were cheering a federal court’s opinion blocking enforcement of California’s draconian magazine ban. That opinion, in Duncan v. Becerra, shows what’s possible when a federal judge treats the right to keep and bear arms with the respect deserved by all provisions within the Bill of Rights.


The case is challenging the ban enacted last fall by Proposition 63 on so-called “large capacity magazines” (i.e., most ammunition feeding devices “with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds”). California’s law went beyond similar laws in other antigun states by prohibiting not only the manufacturing, sale, or importation of such magazines but also their possession, including by those who had lawfully obtained them before the ban’s effective date of July 1. As Judge Roger T. Benitez put it in his order, “On July 1, 2017, any previously law-abiding person in California who still possesses a firearm magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds will begin their new life of crime.”


Thanks to the injunction issued by Judge Benitez, that is no longer the case. His order prevents enforcement of the ban on possession and the requirement that those in possession rid themselves of their magazines, pending further proceedings in the case. The order left intact, however, the bans on manufacturing, sale, or import.


Judge Benitez held that standard capacity magazines like those affected by the ban are “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment. He further ruled that the law burdens the “core” Second Amendment right of possessing an arm commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of home, self, and state. The burden, he wrote, was “more than slight” and the ban was neither presumptively legal nor of long-standing pedigree. And even if the ban were subject to the more forgiving brand of “intermediate scrutiny” under which many gun control laws have been upheld, he found it would not be a reasonable fit with the state’s asserted purpose of public safety because it is squarely aimed at law-abiding persons.


Judge Benitez had some unusually sharp characterizations of California’s gun control laws. “The language used, the internally referenced provisions, the interplay among them, and the plethora of other gun regulations, have made the State’s magazine laws difficult to understand for all but the most learned experts,” he stated. “Too much complexity fails to give fair notice and violates due process,” he continued, noting that even the attorney for the State of California could not describe all of the magazine ban’s intricacies during the hearing. “Who could blame her?” he asked rhetorically. “The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law.”


Judge Benitez also assailed the creeping incrementalism that retroactively seeks to punish facially harmless behavior by upstanding people who are acting in good faith. “Constitutional rights would become meaningless if states could obliterate them by enacting incrementally more burdensome restrictions while arguing that a reviewing court must evaluate each restriction by itself when determining constitutionality,” he wrote. Perhaps not coincidentally, this was exactly the complaint that the NRA and others had raised with the Ninth Circuit’s opinion the Supreme Court had earlier in the week declined to review. By focusing narrowly on the question of whether the Second Amendment was specifically meant to protect concealed carry, the Ninth Circuit had ignored the fact that California has foreclosed every option to lawfully bear arms for self-defense in public.


Judge Benitez framed the questions in Duncan case as whether a law-abiding, responsible citizen has “a right to defend his home from criminals using whatever common magazine size he or she judges best suits the situation” and “to keep and bear a common magazine useful for service in a militia.” He opined that “a final decision on the merits is likely to answer both questions ‘yes’… .“


Thursday’s opinion represents a very encouraging development but unfortunately is not the last word in the case. It remains to be seen if the state will appeal the injunction, and the court must still resolve the underlying claims. Once that happens, further appeals are likely to follow.


Overall, however, the week’s events were a reminder of the critical role that federal judges play in the freedoms that Americans enjoy (or don’t enjoy). And having a president who respects the Constitution when appointing those judges is a safeguard that no liberty-loving American can overestimate.

Tuesday, December 19th
126528 views

California Gun Laws

#California #Gun #Laws Overview


Rifle & Shotguns


  • Permit to Purchase - Yes*

  • Registration of Firearms - Yes**

  • Permit to possess registered "Assault Weapons" - No

  • Licensing of Owner - No

  • Permit to Carry - No


Handguns

  • Permit to Purchase- Yes*

  • Registration of Firearms - Yes**

  • Permit to possess registered "Assault Weapons" - No

  • Licensing of Owner - Nov

  • Permit to Carry -Yes (in incorporated areas and concealed anywhere)


*As of January 1, 2015, a firearms safety certificate is generally required to purchase or acquire a firearm. A currently valid handgun safety certificate may still be used to purchase or acquire a handgun until it expires.


** Department of Justice record purchases from dealers (all purchases). Residents moving into California have 60 days to register their firearms.


*** On June 29, 2017 a federal district court blocked enforcement of California's new ban on possession of magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds. The ban was set to go into effect on July 1, but implementation is now delayed while the court's injunction is in effect. More information is available here: Read more about how California Court Blocked the Magazine Ban...


The list and map below are included as a tool to assist you in validating your information. We have made every effort to report the information correctly, however reciprocity and recognition agreements are subject to frequent change. The information is not intended as legal advice or a restatement of law and does not include: restrictions that may be placed on non-resident permits, individuals under the age of 21, qualifying permit classes, and/or any other factor which may limit reciprocity and/or recognition. For any particular situation, a licensed local attorney must be consulted for an accurate interpretation. YOU MUST ABIDE WITH ALL LAWS: STATE, FEDERAL AND LOCAL.


STATE STATUS

  • Castle Doctrine - No Law

  • No-Net Loss - No Legislation

  • Right to Carry Confidentiality - No Provisions

  • Right to Carry in Restaurants - Partial Ban

  • Right To Carry Laws - Rights Restricted-Very Limited Issue

  • Right To Carry Reciprocity and Recognition - None

  • Right to Keep & Bear Arms State Constitutional Provisions - No Provisions


Read More Courtesy of NRA-ILA....

Tuesday, December 19th
126489 views

Arkansas Gun Laws

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION -- Article 2, Section 5. “The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep for their common defense.”


Gun Laws Overview

RIFLES & SHOTGUNS

  • Licensing of Owners - No

  • Permit to Carry - No

  • Permit to Purchase - No

  • Registration of Firearms - No


HANDGUNS


  • Licensing of Owners - No

  • Permit to Carry - Yes

  • Permit to Purchase - No

  • Registration of Firearms - No


The list and map below are included as a tool to assist you in validating your information. We have made every effort to report the information correctly, however reciprocity and recognition agreements are subject to frequent change. The information is not intended as legal advice or a restatement of law and does not include: restrictions that may be placed on non-resident permits, individuals under the age of 21, qualifying permit classes, and/or any other factor which may limit reciprocity and/or recognition. For any particular situation, a licensed local attorney must be consulted for an accurate interpretation. YOU MUST ABIDE WITH ALL LAWS: STATE, FEDERAL AND LOCAL.


STATE STATUS

  • Castle Doctrine - Enacted

  • No-Net Loss - Enacted

  • Right to Carry Confidentiality - Provisions Enacted

  • Right to Carry in Restaurants - Partial Ban

  • Right To Carry Laws - Shall Issue

  • Right To Carry Reciprocity and Recognition - Outright Recognition

  • Right to Keep & Bear Arms State Constitutional Provisions - With Provisions


RECIPROCITY NOTES: Colorado, Florida, Maine, Michigan and South Carolina recognize ONLY an Arkansas RESIDENT Permit.


**Laws on Purchase, Possession and Carrying of Firearms**

Purchase and Possession:No state permit is required for the purchase or possession of a rifle, shotgun, or handgun.


Carrying: It is unlawful for a person to possess a handgun on or about his person, in a vehicle occupied by him, or otherwise readily available for use, with a purpose to attempt to unlawfully employ it as a weapon against a person.


Antiques: Arkansas statutes are silent on antique and replica firearms. They are treated as ordinary firearms for possession and carrying purposes.


Machine Guns: A machine gun is defined as a weapon of any description by whatever name known, loaded or unloaded from which more than five shots or bullets may be rapidly, or automatically, or semi-automatically discharged from a magazine, by a single function of the firing device.


Range Protection: A shooting range may not be held liable in a civil lawsuit or criminal action based on a claim of noise or noise pollution.


Preemption: A local unit of government may not enact or enforce any ordinance or regulation affecting firearms or ammunition.


Miscellaneous: It is unlawful to deface the serial number or identification mark of a firearm, or to knowingly possess such a firearm.




Read More Courtesy of NRA-LIA: https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/arkansas/

# concealed


# carry  # reciprocity  https://www.ammoland.com/2017/12/clear-front-sight-picture-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-will/#axzz51epeqfqb

"># axzz51epeqfqb">https://www.ammoland.com/2017/12/clear-front-sight-picture-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-will/#axzz51epeqfqb

  
Monday, December 18th
126653 views

Details of the Concealed Carry Reci

Second Amendment Rights Don’t End at State Borders
The #Concealed #Carry #Reciprocity Act will do several things. First and foremost, it will ensure that Second Amendment rights don’t end at state borders. It will allow authorized handgun owners who are legally permitted in their home state to carry a concealed firearm in others states that also allow concealed carry. Given that all 50 states, and the District of Columbia, now have some form of concealed carry permit, it would eliminate a dangerous patchwork of laws that concealed carry permit holders must navigate across state lines.


The sponsor of the legislation, U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) summed it up when he said, “This is just simple, common-sense legislation that says if you’re a law-abiding citizen we’re not going to turn you into a criminal just for crossing an invisible state line.”


Burden of Proof Lies with the States
The legislation would also shift the burden of proof where it belongs, on the state, to demonstrate a permit holder didn’t comply with their state laws. When it comes to federal lands, concealed carry permit holders would be permitted to carry concealed firearms in the National Parks System, National Wildlife Refuge System and lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation.


States would maintain the authority to set their own firearms laws and regulations for issuing permits in within their borders. The legislation provides that a permit holder who carries in another state must abide by that state’s laws and regulations when it comes to carrying concealed. Residents of states that passed Constitutional carry laws would be able to carry in another state with Constitutional carry without having to obtain a permit.


Opposition and Outlandish Claims
That hasn’t stopped opponents of gun rights and firearms from lashing out, sometimes with outlandish claims of what is to come if the legislation is eventually signed into law.


Claim: The U.S. Conference of Mayors, including no less than anti-gun Mayors Bill de Blasio of New York City and Rahm Emmanuel of Chicago, claims concealed carry reciprocity would “remove local governments’ ability to maintain sensible gun standards, and keep a proper vetting process in place …”


Correction: This is just plain wrong. As previously stated above, the bill would allow states to set their own laws and regulations. If a state requires a permit to carry concealed, and a firearms owner comes from a state that has Constitutional carry, that person would be required to obtain a permit from their home state before carrying a firearm concealed in their neighboring state with stricter concealed carry laws.


Claim: Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety claims the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would “make our communities less safe.” That chicken-little sky-is-falling hyperbole has been tried before. It wasn’t’ true then, and it just isn’t true now. As individual states passed laws permitting law-abiding gun owners to carry concealed, predictions of a cataclysm were never borne out.


Correction: The opposite has been true. More than 16.3 million law-abiding Americans have concealed carry permits. This year, more than 1.83 million alone were issued. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center reported violent that crimes fell, and at a considerable rate. Lott’s study also found that concealed carry permit holders were actually more law-abiding than the population in general, with permit holders committing crimes at even lower percentages than police officers.


Claim: Former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords group has been particularly vocal in her groups’ opposition to permitting Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Her group issued a press release following the House of Representatives’ passage, claiming the legislation would “let people with violent criminal histories carry guns.” This is a patently false claim.


Correction: Individuals with a violent criminal history are not permitted to buy a firearm, much less carry that firearm concealed in public. States issuing permits run the same FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) on applicants just as they do on anyone purchasing a firearm. If that individual isn’t allowed to buy a firearm because of a prohibiting factor, including felony convictions, mental health adjudication, domestic violence convictions and a fugitive from justice, among other disqualifying grounds, that person would be barred from receiving a concealed carry permit.


Read More Courtesy of AmmoLand: https://www.ammoland.com/2017/12/clear-front-sight-picture-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-will/#axzz51epEQfqB

Thursday, December 14th
127496 views

Delaware and the right to bear arms

The #SupremeCourt of the State of #Delaware has upheld the right to keep and bear arms provision of the State Constitution, which was enacted in 1987, passing through two separately elected legislatures. The case was a challenge to the state ban on the possession of weapons in state parks and forest. In Bridgevile Rifle & Pistol Club v. Small, the court ruled that a ban on the possession and carry of #guns, enacted by unelected bureaucrats, was unconstitutional under the Delaware Constitutions Article I, Section 20.




From delaware.gov:
This appeal concerns guns and, as such, has attracted numerous amici curiae raising politically fraught questions concerning gun rights.1 However, at its core, this case raises straightforward questions of Delaware constitutional and administrative law. We are asked whether unelected officials from the State’s parks and forest departments, whose power is expressly limited, can ban (except for a narrow exception for hunting) the possession of guns in state parks and forests in contravention of Delawareans’ rights under the State’s constitution. Clearly they cannot. They lack such authority because they may not pass unconstitutional laws, and the regulations completely eviscerate a core right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and family outside the home–a right this Court has already recognized. As such, the regulations are unconstitutional on their face. Thus, we REVERSE for these reasons and those that follow.




Here is Article I, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution. The meaning is clear: “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.” It is interesting to see the logical pretzels the dissent turns in attempting to keep the ban in place. They amount to a number of assertions of Progressive dogma.




Essentially they are:
There are no pre-existing natural rights to arms.
The State never explicitly granted a right to arms in its Constitution, early on, so any legislative acts done before the right was added are grandfathered in.
The legislature never really intended Section 20 to mean what it says.
England restricted the right to arms in some times and places, so we can do so as well.
The Second Amendment never applied to the States until recently, so any reasoning based on Heller and McDonald does not apply.
Nobody challenged the law before, so it must be Constitutional
The dissent drones on for dozens of pages. But it all comes down to the same old Progressive doctrines: the state can do what it wants, and guns are bad.




Read more here https://www.ammoland.com/2017/12/delaware-supreme-court-upholds-right-to-arms/#axzz51G7ps9oY courtesy of AmmoLand

Thursday, December 14th
127286 views

The Gun Industry and Net Neutrality

Unless #Congress takes action, the Federal Communications Commission will hold a #vote on Thursday to eliminate net neutrality rules, which activists say could negatively effect online speech and commerce. Although a host of hypothetical scenarios can describe the potential impact repealing #netneutrality could have on the Internet as we know it, Ryan Singel, a media and strategy fellow at Stanford Law, made the case for why the gun industry and activists should be concerned.




He said his main concern is that repealing the federal rules would allow Internet service providers to limit the reach of or even block content creators — websites like Gun.Rodeo or The Firearm Blog, for example. He argued the rules protect the spirit of the Internet because no matter which ISP is used, the user has access to the whole world wide web. “The current rules protect ISPs from government pressure,” he said, adding that if they’re repealed “I think pretty quickly we’re going to see people figuring out, on both sides of or all across the ideological spectrum, that they could do to their opponents what they’ve done on Twitter and Facebook, which is figure out what the rules are and then get people blocked.”




He said the impact could be greater on those who express opinions that are unpopular or outside of the mainstream. Although social media giant Facebook has already placed restrictions on gun sales, for example, due to public outcry, other websites that host them were still accessible. But if the FCC repeals net neutrality, an ISP could decide to block those sites for similar reasons. Singel argued repealing net neutrality could also lead to programs similar to Operation Choke Point, a Justice Department initiative that pressured banks to choke off relationships with gun and ammo sellers, payday lenders and other businesses deemed “high risk” for fraud. Pro-gun organizations raised concerns about the initiative and even lobbied Congress to pass legislation to protect firearm businesses from unfair treatment by financial institutions. Guns.com reached out to gun industry trade and political organizations about net neutrality, but they did not respond to requests for comment.




FCC chairman Ajit Pai, appointed to the committee by President Obama in 2012, has taken a largely libertarian attitude toward regulating the Internet, arguing rolling back the 2015 regulations would allow for more competition and in turn lead to economic growth. In a factsheet released last month, Pai addressed concerns that the repeal would allow for ISPs to block websites, saying they “didn’t block websites before the Obama Administration’s heavy-handed 2015 Internet regulations and won’t after they are repealed.” The basis for his argument, according to the factsheet, is that ISPs would have to disclose such a move, would face a public backlash and invite scrutiny from the Federal Trade Commission for unfair practices.




Read more here http://www.guns.com/2017/12/13/why-second-amendment-advocates-should-support-net-neutrality/ courtesy of Guns

Thursday, December 14th
127730 views

Gun Laws in Arizona

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION -- Article 2, Section 26 “The right of the individual citizen to #beararms in defense of himself or the #State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an #armed body of men.”


Gun Laws Overview


RIFLES & SHOTGUNS


  • Licensing of Owners - No

  • Permit to Carry - No

  • Permit to Purchase -

  • Registration of Firearms - No


HANDGUNS
  • Licensing of Owners - No

  • Permit to Carry - No*

  • Permit to Purchase -

  • Registration of Firearms - No


* Arizona respects the right of all U.S. citizens to carry a concealed handgun with or without a permit, or to carry openly while in this state. An Arizona resident permit can be obtained for the purposes of carrying concealed while in other states that offer recognition or reciprocity.


STATE STATUS


  • Castle Doctrine - Enacted

  • No-Net Loss - No Legislation

  • Right to Carry Confidentiality - Provisions Enacted

  • Right to Carry in Restaurants - Legal

  • Right to Carry Laws - No Permit Required

  • Right To Carry Reciprocity and Recognition - Outright Recognition

  • Right to Keep & Bear Arms State Constitutional Provisions - With Provisions


Arizona respects the right of all U.S. citizens to carry a concealed handgun with or without a permit, or to carry openly while in this state. An Arizona resident permit can be obtained for the purposes of carrying concealed while in other states that offer recognition or reciprocity.


Antiques/Replicas:
Arizona statutes are silent on antique and replica firearms except that firearms in a permanently inoperable condition are not included within the definition of firearms and are therefore exempt from the weapon laws of Arizona. All other categories of antique or replica firearms are treated as ordinary firearms for possession and carrying purposes.



Carrying:
Arizona respects the right of law abiding citizens to openly carry a handgun. Any person 21 years of age or older, who is not prohibited possessor, may carry a weapon openly or concealed without the need for a license. Any person carrying without a license must acknowledge and comply with the demands of a law enforcement officer when asked if he/she is carrying a concealed deadly weapon, if the officer has initiated an "investigation" such as a traffic stop.



Read More Courtesy of NRA-ILA: https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/arizona/ courtesy of NRA ILA

Wednesday, December 13th
126108 views

Gun Laws in Alaska

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION -- Article 1, Section 19. “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a #free state, the right of the people to keep and #beararms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the state or #political subdivision of the State.”

Gun Laws Overview
RIFLES & SHOTGUNS HANDGUNS
Licensing of Owners No No
Permit to Purchase No No
Registration of Firearms No No
* A permit to carry a concealed handgun is not necessary in Alaska, but permits are available to those who want to carry in states that recognize Alaska permits. Per AS § 18.65.748, a person holding a valid permit to carry a concealed handgun from another state or a political subdivision of another state is a recognized permitee under Alaska law for purposes of carrying a concealed handgun.

STATE STATUS
Castle Doctrine Enacted
No-Net Loss No Legislation
Right to Carry Confidentiality Provisions Enacted
Right To Carry Laws No Permit Required
Right to Carry in Restaurants Partial Ban
Right To Carry Reciprocity and Recognition Outright Recognition
Right to Keep & Bear Arms State Constitutional Provisions With Provisions

Antiques and Replicas
State law is silent on antique and replica firearms therefore they must be treated as ordinary firearms for possession and carrying purposes.

Carrying
Any person 21 years of age or older may carry a handgun concealed on their person provided that, when contacted by a police officer, informs the officer of that possession and allows the police officer to secure the handgun for the duration of that contact.

Machine Guns
A machine gun is defined as a firearm that is capable of shooting more than one shot automatically, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. It is unlawful to manufacture, possess, transport or sell a machine gun or a silencer, but it is an affirmative defense to possess such devices if they are legally registered and possessed in compliance with all federal laws. It is unlawful to possess any rifle with a barrel length of less than 16 inches, a shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18 inches, or any rifle or shotgun with an overall length of less than 26 inches.

Read More Courtesy of NRA ILA...