AmmoLand Gun News

Manasquan, NJ --(Ammoland.com)- The New Jersey Appellate Division decided two cases this week in support of fair treatment for those who received mental health care, but who no longer suffer from such disabilities in such a manner that would handicap them in the safe handling of firearms.

The law firm of Evan F. Nappen, Attorney at Law PC of Eatontown, New Jersey, (www.evannappen.com) represented both of these appellants.

Both cases were partially funded by the NRA’s Civil Rights Defense Fund.

IN RE M.L., PETITIONER FOR EXPUNGEMENT
Two years ago, M.L., a retired law enforcement officer with over 25 years of service, suffered from a bout of depression, from which he had significantly improved. He voluntarily admitted himself to a mental health facility and, thereafter, received outpatient treatment. He sought to have his voluntary commitment records expunged to relieve the stigma associated with his hospital stay and to help him gain employment as a security guard. M.L.’s treating doctor testified that M.L. was presently of sound mental health. Despite the above, the trial court denied the petition.

Louis P. Nappen, Esq., appeared on behalf of M.L. both at the trial court and on appeal. On appeal, Mr. Nappen argued that the Ocean County Trial Court erred in applying the wrong standard of review and in failing to conclude M.L. met all requirements for expungement under the statute. The Appellate Division agreed, finding that “the trial court’s opinion appeared to ignore the provisions of the statute” and that “the denial of expungement premised upon a possible future weapons application is erroneous.”

It was clear that the petitioner received unfair treatment from the trial judge, and on February 8, the Appellate Division ordered, “”We conclude the trial court’s review was deficient as it failed to comply with the requisites of the statute. Accordingly, we reverse the October 15, 2010 order and remand the matter for consideration by a different Law Division judge[.]“

When asked about the decision, Attorney Nappen stated, “Basically, the judge refused to apply the statute to the facts of the case, but instead promoted an anti-gun agenda. I am glad that the Appellate Division saw the unfairness of the situation.”

This decision is available at http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a1499-10.pdf .

IN RE WEAPONS OF A.S.
Following a dismissed temporary restraining order (regarding which the wife’s allegation could not be proven), the State moved to forfeit A.S.’s firearms that were seized in accordance with the temporary order.  Firearms were not involved in any way in his wife’s allegations of domestic violence. A.S. has no criminal record or other absolute bars to firearm possession.

Despite the above, the prosecutor insisted on a mental health evaluation based on information provided by the wife that A.S had threatened and attempted suicide in the past. Appellant testified that he has suffered from chronic back pain since 1997, and he has also been diagnosed with depression. Appellant testified that he had been under the care of psychiatrists.

At the hearing, A.S. presented a doctor’s letter in response to the prosecutor’s demand that attested to A.S.’s present mental health stability. Despite the doctor’s letter, the trial court granted the State’s petition for forfeiture.

The defendant appeared pro se at the Sussex County Trial Court, but hired Evan F. Nappen, Attorney at Law, PC for the appeal. Louis P. Nappen, Esq., argued the appeal for the firm.

On February 6, the Appellate Division found that the appellant was misled at the trial court level. “He should not have been deprived of fair notice that the State would not accept [his doctor’s] letter as satisfying the statutory requirement.”

The Court stated, “Over appellant’s earlier objections, the court had granted two adjournments to the State to prepare its case. It should also have granted a continuance of the hearing to appellant to seek more evidence of his mental fitness.” Therefore, the Appellate Division reversed and remanded the matter to reopen the hearing and permit A.S. to present additional evidence of his fitness to possess his firearms.

This decision is available at http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a3192-10.pdf .

The above decisions also mirror the Appellate Division decision in State v. Pyskaty, July 8, 2011, where the Court reversed a Monmouth County trial court that refused to consider a doctor’s written evaluation in support of the return of firearms and firearm rights. The Pyskaty case was argued by Richard V. Gilbert, Esq., also of the Nappen Firm, and is available at http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a3742-09.opn.html.

When asked about the A.S. and M.L. appeals, Attorney Nappen commented, “These victories do not just support firearm rights, but also civil rights for those who face unfair treatment by the courts or by the state as a result of seeking mental health treatment. The Appellate decisions send a message that judges should stop discouraging people from seeking mental health counseling at the fear of losing their personal reputations and firearm rights.”

Tough Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens

Cato Institute

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- This special publication uses an extensive collection of news reports from over an eight-year period to survey the circumstances and outcomes of defensive gun uses in America.

Federal and state lawmakers often oppose repealing or amending laws governing the ownership or carrying of guns.

That opposition is often based on assumptions that the average citizen is incapable of successfully employing a gun in self-defense or that possession of a gun in public will tempt people to violence in contentious situations.

Those assumptions, illustrated in this report, are false.

Such cases are an exceedingly small minority of gun uses by otherwise law-abiding citizens and a great number of tragedies-murders, rapes, assaults, robberies-have been thwarted by self-defense gun uses.

The vast majority of gun owners are ethical and competent – and thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns.

This report’s analysis begins with an overview of the academic studies that have tried to estimate the frequency of defensive gun uses. It then examines recent legal issues and trends surrounding the law of self defense, and then explores the manner and circumstances in which people use guns against criminals.

This paper also examines instances of gun use in self-defense in order to provide a better understanding of their character. When ordinary Americans use guns in self defense, what is the nature of that use? How frequently do these events occur and what are the consequences? Finally, a lengthy Appendix provides scores of documented examples in which ordinary people have used guns to defend themselves.

Tought Targets: When Criminals Face Armed Resistance from Citizens, Cato White Paper No. 33

About the Authors
Author/Editor Summary:

Clayton E. Cramer teaches history at the College of Western Idaho and is the author of Armed America: The Remarkable Story of How and Why Guns Became as American as Apple Pie (Nelson Current, 2007).

David Burnett is a graduate of the University of Kentucky College of Business and Economics and serves as the director of public relations for the Students for Concealed Carry.

Buffalo Soldier Stories on Urban Shooter Podcast

Urban Shooter Podcast

Upper Marlboro, MD --(Ammoland.com)- The month of February 2012, I plan to provide a little black history knowledge here on the Urban shooter podcast.

Actually it’s a series on American history sub-categorized as black history. Knowledge alone is not power. It is what we do with knowledge that gives us power.

Gun control is based on Racism. American patriots know and fight against it, usually with those that should be our allies.

The black person in America has always been a part of the gun rights argument. like it or not, it is, what it is. I have discovered that if a person uses the terms “gun violence” or “black on black” crime there is a high probability they are parroting, misinformed,conditioned or purposely misleading others against self defense for “other” people.

Violence is force employed to do damage. the free, law abiding people I associate with in the gun culture do not advocate violence. Gun ownership does not equate to murderess intent. I own a few guns and I don’t want to kill anyone. And why do some sensationalize and promulgate, “black on black“? Why the self hate? Why the prejudice?

Those that don’t know their history are doomed to repeat it.

As a kid, I used to think history was boring. Now I understand that I am a part of history. The story of gun control in America is like that.

In the following weeks I hope to share some tidbits on:

• The Deacons of Defense
• dr. Ossian Sweet
• The buffalo soldiers
• Black American revolutionary war soldiers
• Personalities in the civil rights era that were a catalyst for the Gun Control Act of 1968
• The Old west Cowboys and outlaws
• Gabriel Prosser
• Nat Turner
• Harriet Tubman
• Frederick Douglass
• Richard F. Williams
• Dred Scott
• Cruikshank
• Otis McDonald

So stay tuned to this great blog and more from your friend and brother from another mother, the Black Man with a Gun.

Rev. Kenn Blanchard

Kenn Blanchard of Black Man with a Gun

About:
Kenn Blanchard is a contributor to AmmoLand Shooting Sports News and Producer of the Urban Shooter pod cast. In addition Kenn Blanchard is a pro-gun media producer & marketing professional that helps small businesses by providing information, entertainment , inspiration and support to the sport shooting community through blogs, voice -over, pod-casting and professional speaking. Visit: www.kennblanchard.com

Triumverate of Philadelphia Officials Responsible for Violent Crime

AmmoLand Gun News

Philadelphia, PA --(Ammoland.com)- Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter expressed indignant outrage this past Monday regarding the case of Jorge Aldea, a man with a lengthy criminal record, including arrests for attempted murder and assault.

Aldea was released on reduced bail mere hours before a warrant was issued for his arrest as the main suspect in yet another murder.

Depending on who you ask, this murderous thugs release was the fault of the DA’s Office if you ask the Police, and the fault of the Police if you ask the Office of the District Attorney Seth Williams. ~ http://tiny.cc/hgwpf

Today we learned of a man John Gassew, who was arrested no less the 44 times for crimes including armed robbery was finally sentenced to a 30 plus year term in prison for his crimes, only because Federal Prosecutors took interest in him after a 2008 Philadelphia Inquirer investigation on the violent crime problem in Philadelphia focused a spotlight on Gassew. ~ http://tiny.cc/97p9r

The 2008 investigation by the Inquirer highlighted a pervasive problem that law abiding gun owners have been pointing out for years. In the vast majority of cases, gun possession by criminals are plead out to secure a quick conviction and notch another victory in the personal file of the Prosecutor, or are never even tried.

In fact, in Philadelphia, two thirds of all violent criminal defendants walked scott free from all charges!

The report further pointed out that although Philadelphia has the highest violent crime rate of any City in America, it simultaneously has the lowest violent crime conviction rate.

Three people are primarily responsible for this situation as it exists today.

• Mayor Nutter
• Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey
• District Attorney Seth Williams.

Nutter ( a proud member of MAIG) for not demanding accountability from Ramsey and Williams, in favor of clamoring for the illegal enactment by City Council of gun laws in the City that effect only law abiding Citizens and that they have no authority to enact because they are pre-empted by the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act.

Commissioner Ramsey is equally guilty of the same acts, including putting in an appearance on Capitol Hill more then a month ago, advocating for stricter gun laws, under false pretenses, by continuing to lie about the non existent “Florida Loophole “ that is a reciprocity agreement that the State of Pennsylvania legally recognizes carry permits issued by Florida, a State which incidentally has stricter requirements to obtain a carry permit then Pennsylvania does.

Finally, District Attorney Seth Williams was much more interested in retroactively pursuing charges against a Delaware Valley man, Mark Fiorino; who recorded several Philadelphia Police Officers abusing their authority and displaying gross ignorance of the very laws they are charged with upholding when they accosted Fiorino on a public street for lawfully carrying his sidearm in a manner they didnt like.

After being held at gun point, forced to the ground, and detained in handcuffs for nearly an hour, Fiorino was released from the scene after Officers determined he had not violated any law, he later posted his legal recording of the Officers actions to Youtube and area Pro Second Amendment Forums such as The Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Assoc. It was only after several months of the recording going viral on the internet that Seth Williams or one of his underlings decided that charges were warranted after all. Clearly a retaliatory move, a blatant abuse of authority and power designed solely to punish Fiorino and send a warning to any other Citizen that dared to contemplate or attempt to expose the gross incompetence that is endemic in what masquerades as a ” Justice System ” in Philadelphia.

Here’s what the Philadelphia Police Departments Chief of Detectives wrote to the Philadelphia Inquirer regarding the institutionalized blind eye turned on violent criminals.

” We have to stop pointing the finger everywhere but at the very people who prey on us each day. Over time we have allowed our value system to erode. We refuse to hold people accountable for their actions and constantly make excuses for their inexcusable behavior. The incessant cry for tougher gun laws is a good example. Until we’re ready to strictly enforce the current laws there is no reason for tougher ones.

Yes, there is a need to work on the social ills at the core of much of the unrest, but that does not mean we should accept those ills as a reason to excuse the behavior. Those engaged in this violent lifestyle know exactly what they’re doing. They also know it is wrong. And they also know there are no serious consequences for their actions. It’s not a matter of not knowing right from wrong, it’s a matter of weighing the risk. And today they face very little risk.

Time after time these budding killers are arrested with guns, only to be returned to the streets with a slap on the wrist. Is it any wonder we have trouble getting witnesses to speak up? Instead of holding vigils at murder scenes, groups like Men United for a Better Philadelphia and Mothers in Charge should throw a ring around the Criminal In-Justice Center and demand that our judges hold the criminals accountable.

More than 80 percent of Philadelphia’s cold-blooded killers have criminal records. Most of those records are lengthy, many for violent crimes. Every one of those arrests represents an opportunity to send a clear message, before they take another life. ”

Joseph Fox
Chief of Detectives
Philadelphia Police Department
Philadelphia

Yet to listen to the various Anti Gun Groups and their assorted enablers, the problem is the alleged ” easiness” with which someone can get a gun , not a Court and Criminal Justice System obviously broken and overly politicized, with those in the best position to crack down on criminals and be proactive in supporting policies that actually have been shown time and again to be effective, such as mandatory sentencing laws; more interested in pursuing press conferences that fuel their future political ambitions.

It is the most crass and immoral of acts, knowingly permitting a system to exist that apparently condones the sacrifice of an arbitrary number of innocent citizens in furtherance of a political ideology for personal gain.

 

More articles, commentary and information by Dan Roberts available at That Every Man Be Armed.com

Gun Rights - The Latest Civil Right To Come Under Fire

AmmoLand Gun News

Manasquan, NJ --(Ammoland.com)- While its certainly true that firearms rights and freedoms have seen an exponential increase over the last thirty years, its equally true that those rights have been hard won.

Gun owners having to constantly push back against a tsunami of deliberate misrepresentations and out right lies foisted on an uneducated public by various gun control groups, aided and abetted by their ideological puppet-masters in the mainstream media.

These anti freedom demagogues have NO moral or ethical constraints to restrain them from their malicious malfeasance, so it’s left to the true grassroots individuals and assorted groups on the side of freedom to take up the task of informing the public of the facts. The 2008 SCOTUS Case Heller v DC is just one recent example. The anti gun zealots insisted to anyone that would listen up to, during, after and even today, nearly three years after the ruling; that this case was the first time the Supreme Ct ruled in such a way.

This is bald faced LIE and is something that can easily be proven as such with a simple five minute Google or Amazon search for a book titled ” Supreme Court Gun Cases” which covers two centuries and ninety two separate cases where the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the Second Amendment and firearms ownership and use as an individual and protected right.

The more recent case of Chicago v McDonald, affirming that the Second Amendment was a protected individual right, binding against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment, should have been the final nail in the coffin for the gun banners, yet the various groups, anti gun politicians and their enablers in the media have obstinately persisted in their efforts to do everything within their power to actively work to deny this fundamental civil right to as many people as possible, in every way they can conceive, with some of the most twisted logic and absurd reasoning ever voiced or put to paper.

Sadly, this is not the first time in our Country’s history we have born witness to this type of despicable and despotic behavior before and should easily recognize it.

We saw it with the enactment of the Sullivan Law in NY, designed solely to deprive recent immigrants their American Civil Right to firearms, because they were viewed as a threat to the ” establishment ” and slandered in the most vicious manner imaginable.

We saw this repeated again with the Civil Rights movement and again with the anti gay rhetoric during the 80′s. Anti Firearms ownership, use, and carry is just the latest iteration of a decades old dogma, one that you would think the majority of the population would have learned by now to dismiss for what it is, a baseless, bigoted, immoral and ethically bankrupt mindset.

During the Civil Rights Era, many people, citizens and politicians alike excoriated Rosa Parks for daring to stand up for herself and the rights of all African Americans by challenging the status quo. She and many, many others endured vicious verbal attacks, physical attacks, threats and the worst of human behavior at the hands of her fellow citizens, as did homosexuals when they first gained the courage to “come out of the closet”.

Pro Freedom, Pro Firearms patriots of every color, creed, race, socioeconomic level, and sexual orientation now find themselves enduring the same despicable behavior. I find it disturbing that the people that claim the loudest to be the most open minded and inclusive are the same people that yell the loudest about how backward, unenlightened, uneducated and dangerous firearms owners are.  How they deserve to be shunned, shamed and viciously attacked for nothing more then daring to uphold the ideals of the Founding Fathers.  Or the desire to embrace their freedom and civil rights and have the ability to defend their lives and the lives of their loved ones from criminal predators that our justice system has shown time and again to be unable or unwilling to deal with in any meaningful manner.

More articles, commentary and information by Dan Roberts available at That Every Man Be Armed.com

Texas Upholds the 2nd Amendment or Does it?

AmmoLand Gun News

Manasquan, NJ --(Ammoland.com)- The Constitution is the guiding instrument of American society, so it is not surprising that issues dealing with the document or its amendments command the highest level of attention and tend to create controversy.

One of the more controversial provisions of the Constitution is the Second Amendment, in which [god] grants Americans the “right to keep and bear arms.” Despite having been ratified in 1791, the Second Amendment continues to be a subject of fervent debate, and the amendment was implicated in Jennings v. McCraw, a lawsuit decided in Texas district court Thursday. The suit found the National Rifle Association denied in its attempt to overturn a Texas law barring 18- to 20-year-old Texans from carrying concealed weapons.

Although the litigation focused on the legitimacy of a Texas state law, Jennings implicated questions of criminal and Constitutional interpretation. According to the NRA and three Texans serving as plaintiffs, the Texas gun statutes violated both the Second and Fourteenth amendments, the latter containing the oft-cited Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiffs called the Texas laws unconstitutional and discriminatory, but U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings disagreed, granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. A motion for summary judgment granted in favor of the defendant acts as a dismissal, as meeting the standard indicates that a judge feels it impossible for a reasonable jury to find for the plaintiff.

The NRA’s counsel also moved for summary judgment, but the motion was denied by Judge Cummings, who dismissed another case in which the NRA challenged the constitutionality of gun restrictions in September 2011. According to Judge Cummings, the Texas law in question did not violate the Second Amendment which criminology experts hold that it “does not confer a right that extends beyond the home.”

As with any litigation involving Constitutional interpretation, the question of how accurately the framers’ intent is channeled through the decision will be questioned. Anti-gun organizations and the Brady Center, a legal action project focused on controlling gun violence that intervened in the case on behalf of the defendants, hailed the decision as a victory in which the Constitution was upheld.

However, the Second Amendment has been interpreted more broadly in the past, as in the U.S. Supreme Court decision on District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). In its opinion, the Court noted that the amendment protects firearm possession and use for “traditionally lawful purposes,” as the plaintiffs in Jennings wished to. Such decisions have not prevented states from being restrictive, however.

In Burton v. Sills, 53 N.J. 86 (1968), the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment’s use of the term “militia” made it applicable only to organized militias, such as the National Guard.

Clearly, such inconsistent interpretation is at best confusing and inconvenient, and is an impedance to the creation and enforcement of effective laws. While the aforementioned opinion of the New Jersey Supreme Court is hardly the standard, such decisions indicate that the Second Amendment may not always receive the deference it deserves.

Similarly, the Jennings decision suggests that the doctrine of federal preemption may be subject to erosion, an issue that has consequences reaching far beyond the Second Amendment and affecting the integrity of the Constitution as a whole.

About:
Marina Salsbury planned on becoming a teacher since high school, but found her way instead into online writing after college. She currently writes on a variety of topics, but always seems to veer back to education-related articles. She currently writes for a masters degree website.

Florida Carry

Florida - -(Ammoland.com)- When Hueris Mora came to us, we did what we always do when contacted by someone who is facing gun carry charges.

We set about researching the charges and circumstances of the incident.

Florida Carry only gets involved in these cases when good people face unjust charges because they choose to lawfully carry defensive arms.

In his case, it was immediately apparent that continuing prosecution by the office of Katherine Fernandez Rundle, Miami-Dade State Attorney, was unjust at best. Our consulting attorneys statewide were in unanimous concurrence that prosecution of this case, despite the clear language of 790.053, was completely baseless. The Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office must have also known that they were in an untenable position because they quickly agreed to take the possibility of jail time off the table.

Removing the possibility of imprisonment was not an olive branch offered in the interest of justice, it was in fact a Trojan Horse. This underhanded move was their only way to keep prosecuting the case because it had the calculated effect of taking away Mr. Mora’s public defender. Once the Assistant State Attorney prosecuting the case had effectively maneuvered to deprive Mr. Mora of legal counsel, an offer was made. An offer so common in Florida that it is considered the standard plea deal…

“You can retake the concealed course to get your license to carry back but kiss your gun goodbye.”

Hueris knew he was getting the shaft despite having done nothing wrong, so he did what nobody before in Florida (that we know of) had done. He didn’t sign the deal. This was a brave decision despite having no legal help at that time.

Florida Carry has consulting attorneys who do countless hours of pro bono work behalf of our members. Unfortunately, at that time we did not have a criminal defense attorney in Mr. Mora’s area. That’s when we reached out to Jesus “Jojo” Rodriguez. He didn’t blink. Pro bono defense of a truly worthy young man who needs our help? “Absolutely!” was Jojo’s immediate response. Our other attorneys and legal interns rallied together to provide support and Mr. Rodriguez, Florida Carry’s newest consulting attorney, drove this case home. The charge of violating Florida’s Open Carry Ban was dismissed with prejudiced. We finally won this fight that deprived Mr. Mora of his handgun for nearly six months.

Last year, when 2011 SB 234 was debated in the State Legislature, our elected leaders were told about law abiding gun owners being arrested and thrown in jail for even accidental or incidental exposure of lawfully carried firearms. The State Prosecuting Attorneys lobbyist repeatedly said that “Nobody has ever been prosecuted for open carry.” The fact is that nobody ever went all the way to trial. Many have been prosecuted; this was a case where a good man fought back. If this doesn’t meet some lobbyist definition of prosecution, we recommend a new dictionary.

Judge the case docket for yourself: http://tiny.cc/joq5l

It sure looks like prosecution to us.

The Florida Sheriff’s Association sent multiple lobbyists in uniform who said that law enforcement officers will use their “proper discretionary powers” and would never arrest someone for carrying a handgun if it became innocently unconcealed. Yet there is a 25 year history of some officers using subjective language in firearms laws to unreasonably arrest law-abiding people who choose to exercise their right to bear arms. In one such case a man lawfully carrying was permanently injured when handcuffs were put on him with such force that nerves in both wrists were severed. All because part of his handgun became unconcealed.

Early last year, Florida’s Open Carry Ban was amended to insert the subjective language asked for by the Florida Sheriffs and State Prosecuting Attorneys Lobbyist. This compromised language came with their promise that these incidents would stop. Subsequently Mr. Mora had to spend a night deprived of his freedom in jail and half a year fighting for his rights. Every month we are contacted by other law-abiding people who have been confronted, detained, and threatened with arrest because they were lawfully carrying a firearm in Florida and it “printed” through clothing or became unconcealed.

They have broken their promise and we now call on the Florida Legislature to repeal one of the most anti-gun laws in the country.

Despite the Florida Legislature’s clear intent that people who have lawfully carried handguns, which may become innocently unconcealed, face no charges. As long as the general ban on open carry exists, these arrests and prosecutions will continue unabated.

Florida Statute 790.053 is Florida’s very unusual open carry ban, it was a knee jerk reaction when passed in 1987 and it is long overdue for repeal.

We need your membership to make our work possible! Please protect your rights in Florida by joining Florida Carry Today! http://www.FloridaCarry.org/

About:
Florida Carry is a non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots organization dedicated to advancing the fundamental civil right of all Floridians to keep and bear arms for self defense as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I Section 8 of the Florida Constitution. Florida Carry stands only to represent our members and the over 7 million gun owners of Florida. We are not beholden to any national organization’s agenda that may compromise that mission.

Florida Carry works tirelessly toward striking down ill-conceived gun control laws that have been proven to provide safe havens to criminals and be deadly to law abiding citizens.

Senate Legislation, Could, Shut Down, Gun Websites

Gun Owners of America

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- By now, you are no doubt aware that several websites have either gone totally or partially “dark” today in protest of the pernicious internet legislation that will be coming to a vote next week. Wikipedia and Google are just two of the websites which are protesting in this manner.

And while you may have not paid much attention to this story, you need to know that the “muzzle the web” legislation these sites are protesting could also affect your ability to get gun-related information on websites like GOA’s.

The reason is that S. 968 could, in its final form, allow the Brady Campaign to partially shut down our GOA website and our organization (plus many other pro-gun websites) with a series of factually accurate, but legally frivolous complaints.

The Senate bill and its House counterpart have accurately been called “a direct attack on the underpinnings of the web.”

True, many of the most serious “gun problems” are in the House counterpart. But the reality is this: We are within a few votes of killing the whole concept next week in the Senate with only 41 Senate votes.

But if we allow the so-called “anti-piracy” bill to go forward on the HOPE that the worst provisions will not make it into the final version -– and we fail to eliminate them -– the bill may be unstoppable.

Here are the “gun problems,” as we see them:
Section 103(b)(1) of H.R. 3261 allows any “holder of an intellectual property right” to demand that PayPal and other payment and advertising services stop providing services to organizations like ours, thereby shutting off our income.

How would they do this? Perhaps by arguing that we were stealing their intellectual property by quoting their lying misrepresentations in our alerts.

Is this legally frivolous? Sure it is. But the Brady Campaign is the King of Frivolous Complaints:

• Remember when the Brady Campaign asked the Federal Election Commission in 2007 to shut down GOA’s ability to post its candidate ratings on the Internet? They claimed that we were in violation of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. Thankfully, the FEC ruled in GOA’s favor, thus enabling us to continue posting candidate ratings without restraint.
• Remember when the Brady Campaign got 36 state and local jurisdictions to bring frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers –- not in the expectation of winning, but to drain the resources of the manufacturers in order to halt the manufacture of guns in America?

This “muzzle the web” legislation will throw the doors open to even more frivolous complaints. Could we defend ourselves? Yes, we could. We could file a counter notification under section 103(b)(5) and spend years defending ourselves. But the one thing we did learn during the 36 frivolous lawsuits is that the anti-gun forces in America have very deep pockets.

And the other problem is that, under section 104, our Internet providers would be insulated from liability for shutting us down. But they would receive no comparable insulation from legal liability if they refused to cut us off.

The Senate version, S. 968, has been amended, at the behest of Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley and others, to provide many protections which were not in its initial form.

Under section 3, the Attorney General would go to court and would have to claim that, because of a hyperlink to an offending site, we were “primarily” engaged in the theft of intellectual property.

We would feel a lot better about these protections if the Attorney General were not Eric Holder, a ruthless ideologue who has demonstrated that he will go to any lengths to destroy the Second Amendment.

So the bottom line is this: H.R. 3261 and S. 968 would potentially empower the Brady Campaign and Eric Holder to go after our Internet site. To do so, they would have to make the same frivolous arguments and engage in the same lawless activity that they have done so often in the past.

But -– given that we’re within a few votes of snuffing out that risk by killing the bill in the Senate -– we believe it’s the better course of action to do so.

ACTION: Click here to contact your Senators. Ask them to vote against S. 968, every chance they get.

About:
Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no comprise gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul

Grass Roots North Carolina for Firearms Education

North Carolina --(Ammoland.com)- Have You Defended Yourself With A Gun?

GRNC is seeking concealed handgun permit-holders who have used firearms in self-defense. This includes anyone who has fired, brandished or even referred to a firearm in order to deter a violent crime. If you prefer, your identity will be withheld. Send your stories directly to GRNC president Paul Valone at president@GRNC.org.

Mike Luo’s Crusade
Following an extensive interview between GRNC president Paul Valone and New York Times reporter Mike Luo, the Times is now trying to depict North Carolina’s population of concealed handgun permit-holders as rife with felons. To support his claims, Luo relies on flawed methodology, misuse of anecdotal data, and selectively ignored facts he learned during the interview. The current piece is at least the third time Luo has written biased and misleading articles on gun ownership.

Biased Anti-Gun NY Times Reporter Mike Luo

Figures lie…
Although Luo claims to have done data-matching between criminal databases and permit-holders, he admitted confirming only a dozen matches with the NC State Bureau of Investigation.

Data matching between large databases is subject to high rates of “false positives” depending on the number and type of parameters matched.

To quote one data mining whiz: “The problem is that if you’re trying to search a couple of large data sets for something that occurs infrequently, the number of true hits (if any) is likely to be far less than the number of false positives.”

…and liars figure
When asked whether Luo would confirm all matches with the SBI, or whether he would do statistical analysis of his data, determining what percentage of North Carolina permit-holders commit crimes, or whether he would simply provide misleading anecdotal examples as he did on a November 13, 2011 piece on restoration of gun rights for felons, Luo refused to answer.

How Luo creates a false impression
The plural of “anecdote” is not “data”: By pulling a small number of anecdotes rather than verifying all of the data, Luo hopes to paint a false portrait of NC concealed handgun permit-holders as criminals.

Selective data: Luo has a reputation among researchers for cherry-picking research to support his assertions, and for failing to disclose the gun-related leanings of researchers he cites.

The Charlotte Observer fell over itself to propagate Luo’s deceptive story

The Charlotte Observer ran this insult to their gun-owning readership as front page news!

GRNC president Paul Valone responds

“What The New York Times recently published is a biased ‘hit piece’ designed to undermine the unerringly successful expansion of concealed carry laws. By cherry-picking anecdotes from error-prone data matching, reporter Michael Luo creates a false impression of widespread abuse by concealed handgun permit-holders. Luo admits not bothering to confirm more than a handful of the matches found, so given the small data set used, the number of “false positives” may well exceed the number of accurate matches.

“Even Luo’s claim of 2,400 crimes by permit-holders – which includes DUI convictions and relatively minor misdemeanors – represents only a tiny fraction (0.6%) of the 395,251 concealed handgun permits approved since 1995. Moreover, data from other states reveals that few permit revocations result from misuse of firearms.

“As Luo was told during the interview (but chose to ignore), when Grass Roots North Carolina helped draft the state’s concealed handgun law in 1995, we gave law enforcement officials the tools for permit revocations by attaching concealed handgun permit information to the state drivers’ license database. Any concealed handgun permit-holder arrested for a crime would be immediately identified as such.

“Furthermore, nothing in the law prevents the North Carolina Department of Justice from doing checks on permit-holders to ensure they remain in compliance with the law, nor would we oppose such an effort. If the state fails to avail themselves of those tools, the problem lies not within the concealed handgun law, but instead within its enforcement.”

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED:

Leave Website Comments: Leave comments on both the New York Times and Charlotte Observer websites

• NYT:http://tiny.cc/t9wpo
• Charlotte Observer: http://tiny.cc/uhq04

Use Paul Valone’s response to guide your comments

Write Letters to the Editor

Write letters to the Editor of both newspapers

• You can submit a letter to the Charlotte Observer here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2008/08/05/108022/write-the-forum.html
• You can submit a letter to the New York Times here: http://www.nytimes.com/content/help/site/editorial/letters/letters.html

Use the suggested text below to guide your letters.

Deliver This Message

Dear Editor,

I was very disappointed by Mike Luo’s one-sided and flagrantly misleading article that you recently and irresponsibly published. This article was an affront to millions of law-abiding North Carolinian gun owners.

It is telling that Luo claims to provide a “detailed look” at concealed carry in our state, but doesn’t bother to go even to the minimal extent of comparing handgun permittees to the NC population at large.

If he had been interested in the truth he would have learned, and could have responsibly communicated to your readers, that North Carolinians with concealed handgun permits are orders of magnitude less likely to be convicted of crime than is the general population.

According to Luo’s own numbers, out of 240,000 permittees only 2400 were convicted of felonies and misdemeanors over the last five years. This is a rate of 1 % in five years, or 0.2 % per year. For NC in general from 2005 to 2010 (the latest information available from DOJ) there was a yearly average of 5333 felonies (not including misdemeanors) committed per 100,000 in population, a rate of 5.3 % per year.

Luo’s type of politically-motivated yellow journalism has become all too common. Shame on you for participating in his disservice to your readers, and for delivering his insult to hundreds of thousands of law-abiding NC concealed handgun permittees.

About:
Grass Roots North Carolina/Forum for Firearms Education is a non-profit, all volunteer organization devoted to educating the public about trends which abridge the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, and engaging in grass roots activism to preserve those freedoms. Formed in 1994 to conduct a highly successful rally for the Second Amendment, GRNC has gone on to conduct projects like “Remember in November: A Gun Owner’s Guide to Voting,” bringing concealed carry to North Carolina. Visit:www.grnc.org

Wisconsin Carry

Wisconsin --(Ammoland.com)- On September 18, 2010 five law abiding Wisconsin residents were peacefully having dinner at a Culver’s Restaurant in Madison, Wisconsin.

These 5 individuals, who were legally openly carrying as provided by Wisconsin law had finished their dinner and were preparing to leave the restaurant when they were unlawfully detained by a mass of Madison police officers.

Despite the absence of reasonable suspicion or probable cause of any crime or violation, Madison police illegally demanded identification from the men under the threat of arrest if they did not comply.

2 individuals who chose not to comply with the illegal action of the Madison police were subsequently arrested and cited for obstruction. 2 days later those unlawfully issued citations were rescinded and all 5 men, even those who complied with the officers illegal demands were issued citations for disorderly conduct.

On May 5th of 2011, the frivolous disorderly conduct charges against all 5 men were dropped.

Wisconsin Carry, Inc. a non-profit corporation dedicated to protecting and advancing the right of Wisconsinites to carry in the manner of their choosing, open or concealed, filed a federal lawsuit against the City of Madison and the 5 Madison Police officers who participated in the unlawful detainment and treatment of these 5 individuals.

A copy of that lawsuit is available here: http://www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/Madison5/lawsuit.pdf

Today a judgment of $10,000 against the City of Madison and 5 Madison police offers was agreed to by Wisconsin Carry, Inc. and our 5 co-plaintiffs. This judgment will be entered into the record of the Federal District Court, Western Wisconsin.

A copy of the judgment agreement can be viewed here: http://tiny.cc/dgt8r

About:
Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is a non-profit corporation dedicated to the preservation and reclamation of the rights of law-abiding Wisconsin residents to carry in the manner of their choosing. We believe that “open carry” and “concealed carry” are choices to be made by law-abiding citizens based on their situation and preference. Wisconsin Carry, like many gun-rights organizations in Wisconsin, is investing a great deal of resources to get Wisconsin law changed to allow concealed carry this next legislative session by proposing Constitutional Carry. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. will continue to use legal recourse to deter unlawful treatment of law-abiding Wisconsin residents who currently exercise their right to open carry, and soon will exercise their right to concealed carry in Wisconsin. Visit: www.wisconsincarry.org

Anti-Gun-New-York District Attorney Kathleen Rice

AmmoLand Gun News

Nassau, NY --(Ammoland.com)- On February 17, 2011, Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice busted five Nassau County Gun Shops.

Nine people where arrested and charge. The claim made by DA Rice at the time was, and I quote from official NC DA website,

“Rice said that shop owners were breaking the law by temporarily modifying the weapons to appear as though they lacked the required characteristics of an assault weapon.  However, the temporary modification was easily reversible, thereby making them full-fledged assault weapons. For example, a pin was placed in the stock of a weapon in an attempt to prevent its collapse. However, the pins were designed to be easily removable making the stock collapsible.”

Please remember that DA Rice received her due fanfare in the media. And all hailed her as our anti-gun savory. (Sweet for when she moves-on to higher office.)

But, there is a major flaw with the DA’s above statement. According to NYS, there is nothing in law about what the stores had done. As long as the weapons left the store in the lawful NY Compliant state, whether or nor the modifications where “easily reversible,” NO LAW WAS BROKEN by them. What the buyer did after they left the store, is not the stores fault or issue. That would be like blaming Chevy because you ran into another car because you where texting.

Even with Mr. Tretola’s videoed statements about ‘how to’ reverse the modifications, which is nothing more then his First Amendment right to state, NO LAW WAS BROKEN by the stores. DA Rice’s rhetoric, and that all it was, was just to create political sound-bites. (Oh, the DEMs must be dancing naked in the street over her actions.)

Now, we are almost 11-months out, and strangely, there are NO INDICTMENTS. In fact, the county’s case seems to be falling apart. Inside sources, who definitely wish to remain anonymous, have said that the county’s own experts have shredded the DA’s evidence and feel there is little or no case. In fact, again, the DA’s office has quietly let several owners, and their employees, OFF THE HOOK, on Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACOD). (Gee, why hasn’t the press caught this?)

These ACODs where given to Mark Wroobel (Owner of Hunter Sports), Andrew Chernoff (Owner of Coliseum Gun Traders), Carmine Rotondo (An employee of Coliseum Gun Traders), and Michael Marinello (Owner of South Shore Sportsman). All felonies and misdemeanors where DROPPED, and the story tells us further that their only stipulation was not to build NY Compliant rifles, just to buy them from the manufacturers, in NY Compliant configuration. Their gun licenses where given back to them and they must be good citizens for six months to have their court records sealed. They are back selling the very guns that DA Rice BUSTED them for. (SURE SMELLS LIKE FALSE ARREST ISSUES TO ME, but what do I know, I ain’t a lawyer…)

So, why hasn’t the T&T group been offered any ACODs? Their actual charges, at arraignment,  are really no greater then those of Wroobel, Chernoff, Rotondo and Marinello! Here is where the outrage grows. And, keep in mind, as shown above, it already stinks in the DA’s office…

Mr. Tretola maybe a thorn in the county’s side. Mr. Tretola was possibly falsely arrested before because of a conceivably abusive NCPD officer. And, Mr. Tretola does have a Civil Rights case pending in Federal District Court, which has a fair degree of winning.

This editor sees an abusive Nassau County DA, whose has gone way past her position specification to get even with Mr. Tretola, by breaking his bank, and thereby forcing him out of business. If you can’t get him legally…Just use tax dollars and government regulations to force them to go bankrupt, or worse.

Of course, Nassau County should investigate this matter and possibly IMPEACH Ms. Rice. But that will never happen. (NCNF Note: Hopefully the stench from the failed Police Lab will woff its way up her way, as it should…But that issue is sleeping somewhere too!)

And, the NYS Supreme Court, Appellate Division, whose job it is to control lawyers, should investigate this matter and possibly DISBAR Ms. Rice for her abusive legal practices. But that will never happen either.

So, saps like Mr. Tretola, you and I, just have to accept that administrations ARE brutally abusive and when the ‘Keeper of the key’ is the ‘Gatekeeper’ as well, nothing gets fixed.

Remember…Almost eleven months…Accusations…Charges…NO INDICTMENTS…And some HAVE been released from the DA’s bondage.

Where is the outrage by our protectors?

Alan Chwick. Editor
Nassau County News Flash
Press Release from the District Attorney’s website

February 17, 2011
DA Rice Busts Five Nassau Gun Shops For Selling Illegal Assault Weapons
Undercover investigation leads to charges against shop owners and employees

MINEOLA, N.Y. – Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice announced today the results of a sweeping undercover investigation into the sale of assault weapons at gun shops throughout Nassau County. During the 10-month probe, five Nassau County gun shops illegally sold assault weapons to undercover DA investigators and members of the New York State Police. As a result of the investigation, Rice’s office has arrested and charged four store owners and five of their employees.

Under New York State law, only police officers, peace officers, and duly authorized members of the military are legally permitted to possess assault weapons. One category of an assault weapon is defined as a semi-automatic rifle with the ability to accept a magazine carrying more than five rounds of ammunition and that must also have at least two additional characteristics. These additional characteristics can include a folding or telescoping stock, a protruding pistol grip, a bayonette mount, a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher. (NCNF Note: This paragraph is pure rhetoric designed to inflame the readers.)

Rice said that shop owners were breaking the law by temporarily modifying the weapons to appear as though they lacked the required characteristics of an assault weapon. However, the temporary modification was easily reversible, thereby making them full-fledged assault weapons. For example, a pin was placed in the stock of a weapon in an attempt to prevent its collapse. However, the pins were designed to be easily removable making the stock collapsible. (NCNF Note: This paragraph is pure rhetoric, as the items left the stores in lawful NY Compliant configuration.)

Rice said that one defendant, Martin Tretola, 55, of Bellmore, and the owner of T&T Tactical in New Hyde Park and T&T Gunnery in Seaford, went so far as to demonstrate to undercover officers how to remove the temporary pin from the fixed stock making it collapsible. Both T&T Gunnery and Hunter Sports were on notice that civilians who purchased these weapons from their stores had been arrested and charged with illegal possession of an assault weapon in both Nassau and Suffolk counties, but they continued to sell these weapons. (NCNF Note: This paragraph is pure rhetoric, as talking about it is protected under the First Amendment. Additionally, Mr. Tretola, at the end of the video tells the person that converting the item back will get them in trouble. And if the buyers re-converted the items to an illegal state, the pieces still left the stores in their lawful configuration.)

“The nine men arrested today were openly breaking the law, making a practice of putting profits before the safety of our citizens, and flooding our streets with dangerous assault weapons,” Rice said. “Make no mistake, these are combat-specific weapons and not intended for hunting. They have no place on our streets or in the hands of civilians.” (NCNF Note: This paragraph is pure rhetoric, as it is every business’ duty to make a profit, and the guns sold where NOT “dangerous assault weapons” when they left the store.)

Tretola, the owner of two gun shops in Nassau County, is charged with Criminal Sale of a Firearm in the Second Degree, Unlawfully Disposing of an Assault Weapon, and a misdemeanor violation of the Firearms Licensing Provisions. T&T Tactical was charged with Criminal Sale of a Firearm in the First and Second Degrees. Tretola faces up to15 years in prison. His Seaford business, T&T Gunnery, has been charged with Criminal Sale of a Firearm in the First and Second Degrees. His New Hyde Park business, T&T Tactical, along with the following defendants and businesses are charged with Unlawfully Disposing of an Assault Weapon and a misdemeanor violation of the Firearms Licensing Provision. Each individual defendant faces up to seven years in prison and each business faces up to a $10,000 fine per felony or double the company’s gain from the criminal conduct.

Mark Wroobel, 40, of Smithtown. Wroobel and his business, Hunter Sports in Massapequa, are both charged with two counts of Manufacture, Transport, Disposition, Defacement of Weapons and Dangerous Instruments and Appliances and two misdemeanor violations of Firearms Licensing provisions. Wroobel is due back in court February 25 and is represented by Michael Villeck, Esq.
Andrew Chernoff, 50, of Malverne. Chernoff and his business, Coliseum Gun Traders, LTD in Uniondale, are both charged with Manufacture, Transport, Disposition, Defacement of Weapons and Dangerous Instruments and Appliances and a misdemeanor violation of Firearms Licensing provisions. Chernoff is due back in court March 2 and is represented by Stephen Wade LaMagna, Esq.
Carmine Rotondo, 68, of Garden City. Rotondo, an employee of Coliseum Gun Traders, LTD, is charged with Manufacture, Transport, Disposition, Defacement of Weapons and Dangerous Instruments and Appliances and a misdemeanor violation of Firearms Licensing provisions.
Michael Marinello, 41, of East Meadow. Marinello and his business, South Shore Sportsman in Merrick, are both charged with two counts of Manufacture, Transport, Disposition, Defacement of Weapons and Dangerous Instruments and Appliances and two misdemeanor violations of Firearms Licensing provisions. Marinello is due back in court February 22 and is represented by the Legal Aid Society of Nassau County.

Four of Martin Tretola’s employees were also charged as follows:

• Thomas Tretola, 24, of Bellmore. Thomas Tretola, an employee of T&T Gunnery in Seaford and Martin Tretola’s son, is charged with two counts of Manufacture, Transport, Disposition, Defacement of Weapons and Dangerous Instruments and Appliances and a misdemeanor violation of Firearms Licensing provisions. T&T Gunnery is also charged and is owned by Martin Tretola. Tretola is due back in court February 22 and is represented by Charles Horn, Esq.
• Stuart Sansevino, 59, of North Babylon. Sansevino, an employee of T&T Gunnery, is charged with three counts of Manufacture, Transport, Disposition, Defacement of Weapons and Dangerous Instruments and Appliances and 12 misdemeanor violations of Firearms Licensing provisions. Sansevino is due back in court February 22 and is represented by Dave Gallison, Esq.
• Hank Greenberg, 32, of Oceanside. Greenberg, an employee of T&T Gunnery, is charged with three counts of Manufacture, Transport, Disposition, Defacement of Weapons and Dangerous Instruments and Appliances and three misdemeanor violations of Firearms Licensing provisions.
• Morgan Owens, 22, of West Islip. Owens, an employee of T&T Tactical, is charged with one count of Manufacture, Transport, Disposition, Defacement of Weapons and Dangerous Instruments and Appliances and a misdemeanor violation of Firearms Licensing provisions. Owens is due back in court February 22 and is represented by Dave Gallison, Esq.

Assistant District Attorneys Karen Bennett (Deputy Bureau Chief) and Teresa Corrigan (Bureau Chief) of the Street Narcotics and Gang Bureau are prosecuting the cases for the District Attorney’s Office. New York State Police Captain James Dewar, Senior Investigator Joseph DeMaria and Investigator Edward Franke, conducted the investigation, together with the District Attorney’s Office.

The charges are merely accusations and the defendants are presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty.

Alan Chwick, Editor
Nassau County News Flash
5 Brunella Street
Long Island, NY 11520
516-903-1959
Editor@iNCNF.org
URL: http://www.iNCNF.org

National Shooting Sports Foundation

NEWTOWN, Conn --(Ammoland.com)- In response to a ruling by a federal judge in the Northern District of Texas in favor of the federal government in a case brought by the NRA challenging the federal restriction on the purchase of handguns by 18-20 year old adults, NSSF plans to file a friend-of-the-court brief in support of NRA’s appeal of the ruling.

In the case, Jennings v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the NRA and a group of responsible young adults argued that because 18-20 year olds are considered adults for virtually every other purpose, such as voting and military service, adults in this age group should also be able to purchase handguns from licensed retailers.

A similar case, in which many of the same plaintiffs challenge the state of Texas’ ban on issuance of right-to-carry permits to adults under 21, remains pending in the same court.

About NSSF
The National Shooting Sports Foundation is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 6,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers. For more information, log on to www.nssf.org.

National Rifle Association

FAIRFAX, Va. --(Ammoland.com)- On Sept. 29, a federal judge in the Northern District of Texas decided in favor of the federal government in a case brought by the NRA challenging the federal restriction on the purchase of handguns by 18-20 year old adults.

The case is far from over, as the NRA has already filed an appeal.

In the case, Jennings v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the NRA and a group of responsible young adults argued that since 18-20 year olds are considered adults for virtually every other purpose, such as voting and military service, adults in this age group should also be able to purchase handguns from licensed dealers.

In the ruling, Judge Samuel Cummings wrote “the Court is of the opinion that the ban does not run afoul of the Second Amendment to the Constitution,” and wrongly equated law-abiding 20-year-olds with criminals, stating that “the right to bear arms is enjoyed only by those not disqualified from the exercise of the Second Amendment rights.”

“We strongly disagree with this ruling,” said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. “As we said when we filed this case, adults 18 and up have fought and died for American freedom throughout our country’s history. They are adults for virtually every legal purpose under federal and state law, and that should include the ability to buy handguns from licensed dealers to defend themselves, their homes and their families. Our fellow plaintiffs in this case are law-abiding and responsible young adults. We plan to defend their rights to the very end.”

A similar case, in which many of the same plaintiffs challenge the state of Texas’ ban on issuance of Right-to-Carry permits to adults under 21, remains pending in the same court. That case is Jennings v. McCraw.

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military. Visit: www.nra.org

NRA News

Fairfax, VA --(Ammoland.com)- NRA-News is a valued partner that continues to cover breaking gun rights news with a new and improved short video format in the “NRA News Minute” videos.

To view the current firearms or gun rights news video, please click above:

Cam Edwards talks to Dr. Timothy Wheeler, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership who rebuts an article entitled “Firearm injuries to kids underestimated, study shows”

Read More on these topics:

• Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
• Stop Doctors From Interrogating Children about Daddy’s Guns
• AntiGun Politics in Your Doctors Office

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military. Visit: www.nra.org

Wisconsin Gun Owners

Wisconsin --(Ammoland.com)- A single mom. Two kids in the backseat. Grocery shopping went fine, but the man approaching their car has a gun and is about to turn the parking lot into a scene straight from hell.

Thankfully mom has a gun.

Wait a minute, no she doesn’t.

She doesn’t have the gun … because according to State Rep. Garey Bies and a small group of self-righteous elitist do-gooders in the gun community she doesn’t have … “enough training.” Too late.

Many gun owners talk a good game about concealed carry training and boast endlessly about what they want to impose on others.

These self-appointed gun experts have unknowingly adopted the arguments of the gun control crowd. You know, if we don’t shackle ourselves with more regulations, bad things will happen if guns are involved.

Sound familiar? (Straight out of Sarah Brady’s playbook)?

Rep. Bies - The founding fathers: The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Rep. Garey Bies: The right to bear arms shall be allowed when you complete the course we require.

But the number one rule of a gun fight is … bring a gun. And the Bies bill – aided and abetted by those who crow for more government-mandated training – will prevent many people from doing just that.

Let’s talk in practical terms. The harder it is to get a permit, the more good people who need to carry simply won’t (Prof. John Lott, Ph.D. proved this empirically in his book More Guns, Less Crime).

You and I fought for Constitutional Carry because it was the only way to ensure that our right to bear arms was not held to the whims of the politicians in Madison.

Those whims are coming to a head.

Remember back in May when I informed you that Representative Garey Bies tried to suppress the testimony of supporters of Constitutional Carry at the Madison concealed carry hearing?

Now Rep. Bies is trying to increase the regulation and requirements to get a concealed carry permit.

Rep. Bies is trying to move us further into government regulation of your Second Amendment rights.

He has said he will introduce a bill later this month that will require at least eight hours of training to get a concealed-weapons permit.

Let me be clear: This is not about training. That’s how the big-government neocons, cowering at the feet of leftist anti-gunners, have framed the issue.

This is about more gun regulation, more government-mandated hoops, designed to keep raising the bar needed to “earn” the right to bear arms: something the founding fathers believed was an inalienable right.

What these regulations really do, in practical terms, is disarm good people … leaving them defenseless.

Some people urgently need access to a firearm – there are many cases of single moms being stalked by abusive ex-husbands, for example – who don’t have 8 hours to spare.

They don’t have 8 minutes to spare. Eight seconds would be pushing it in some cases. They need a gun for self-defense and they need it right now.

Are you prepared to tell them they’re not “ready” to defend themselves because they don’t have “enough” training? I’m sure not.

ACTION:

1. E-mail Representative Garey Bies letting him know what you think of his plan to impose new regulatory burdens upon Badger State gun owners.
2. Contribute something to this lobbying campaign so we can effectively stop this thinly-disguised push for gun control. Please do what you can.

About:
WGO works for grassroots gun owners, not politicians. While many gun lobbies fight for “reasonable gun control,” WGO sets a higher standard: Defining the terrain of pro-gun political battle. Sure, many groups claim they’re “pro-gun” – all the while they provide cover for anti-gun deals cut by politicians – but only WGO truly informs gun owners, remaining committed to a 100% pro-gun position. We oppose all gun control – regardless of the political party – and work tirelessly to restore the Second Amendment. Visit www.wisconsingunowners.org

AmmoLand Gun News

WASHINGTON, D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)- Today, U.S. Senators Richard Burr (R-NC) and Jim Webb (D-VA), along with 10 other cosponsors, introduced legislation that would end the arbitrary process through which the government strips veterans and other Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) beneficiaries of their Second Amendment rights.

Currently, veterans who have a fiduciary appointed to act on their behalf are deemed “mentally defective” and are reported to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a system which prevents them from being able to purchase firearms in the United States.

The Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act would require a judicial authority to determine that VA beneficiaries pose a danger to themselves or others before they can be added to the FBI’s NICS.

“Taking away a Constitutional right is a serious action, and veterans should be afforded the same due process under the law as all other American citizens,” Burr said. “This legislation would protect the rights of veterans and their families by ensuring that only a proper judicial authority is able to determine who is referred to NICS. Our veterans took an oath to uphold the Constitution and they deserve to enjoy the rights they fought so hard to protect.”

“As a matter of fairness, a veteran should be permitted to purchase a firearm under the same conditions as every other American,” said Senator Webb. “This bipartisan bill ensures consistent guidelines are used for reporting citizens to the FBI, and that no veteran is needlessly stripped of their Second Amendment rights.”

The Federal Gun Control Act prohibits certain individuals who have been deemed a “mental defective” from purchasing a firearm. Currently, around 114,000 people who are receiving VA benefits have been reported to NICS, stripping them of their constitutional rights simply because VA appointed a fiduciary to act on their behalf. A fiduciary is assigned to handle disability compensation, pensions, survivors’ compensation, and other VA payments on behalf of a veteran, surviving spouse, dependent child, or dependent parent. VA’s review process for assigning a fiduciary is meant to determine one’s ability to manage VA-provided cash assistance.

The process does not determine whether they are a danger to themselves or others.

Gun Owners of America

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- The House this week adopted legislation protecting the Second Amendment rights of veterans.

Sponsored by Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT), the legislation requires that before a veteran can lose his or her gun rights, they must receive due process in a court of law. Rehberg offered the measure as an amendment to H.R. 2349, which passed the House on a voice vote.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) told GOA he plans to introduce a Senate version of the bill right away. GOA is working to get as many cosponsors to this legislation as possible. In the last Congress, Sen. Burr’s bill passed out of committee only to be derailed by Harry Reid and anti-gun Senate Democrats.

Veterans Disarmament Act
It might seem like a no-brainer. In America, no one —be they in the military or a civilian— should be stripped of their constitutional liberties without having their day in court, right? But it can happen, and it does happen.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) can deem a veteran as a “mental defective” for the sole reason of having a third party appointed over their financial affairs. Veterans with mental health issues such as temporary memory loss or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) commonly turn over control of their finances to a spouse or family member.

Because persons found to be “mental defectives” are prohibited from owning firearms, the names of these veterans are turned over to the FBI’s NICS system.

No crime needs to have been committed. No finding that the person is even remotely dangerous. No trial by a jury of one’s peers. A veteran can be stripped of his or her gun rights simply by the capricious action of government bureaucrats.

Ok, some may protest, but this must happen rarely. It must be an aberration, a mistake. Wrong.

Since 1999, over 150,000 honorably discharged veterans have lost their gun rights in precisely this manner. And though it’s theoretically possible to get off the list, that rarely—if ever—happens.

Gun owners who are not veterans can also be affected by the current law because the definition of “mental defective” used by the VA applies to anyone. It affects veterams particularly hard because of the ease of information sharing between one federal agency (VA) and another (FBI).

But under ObamaCare, medical records for all Americans will be made increasingly available to Washington bureaucrats. What safeguards are in place to ensure that those records will not likewise be abused? None.

That’s why it is vitally important that all gun owners contact their two Senators and insist that they support Sen. Burr’s Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act.

This bill ensures that a veteran cannot lose his or her gun rights without a finding in a court of law that the person is a danger to self or others.

This would mean no more “psychiatric gun bans” for vets, and it will serve notice to the federal government that the same thing will not be allowed to happen to the rest of the population.

GOA is working to get as many cosponsors as possible. Due process under the law is something even anti-gunners should support (they won’t, of course), and we are pushing to get a veto-proof majority behind this legislation.

ACTION: Please contact your Senators and urge them to cosponsor the Second Amendment Veterans Protection Act.

Click Here to Send Your Senators a prewritten email message.

About:
Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no comprise gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul

Wisconsin Gun Owners Don't Buy List Combats Gun-Free Killing Zones

Wisconsin Gun Owners

Wisconsin --(Ammoland.com)- Wisconsin’s new concealed carry law requires businesses to post “No Guns Allowed” signs if they want to keep gun owners with concealed carry permits out.

This is outrageous. But thankfully there’s a solution.

Of course, these idiotic signs advertise to everyone that they are a Criminal Safe Zone — an easy target for mass-murdering thugs.

The good news is this: We will find out very quickly who is pro-gun and who is anti-gun.

Don’t Buy List
I’d like to introduce a new WGO program called the Don’t Buy List.

You see, the Don’t Buy List Program is simple, and it’s been used by our pro-gun friends in other states to great effect. Here’s how.

When you encounter a business that won’t serve you because you’re armed, you’ll fill out and mail us a card, or fill out a form on our website that will alert us to the business in question. You can even remain completely anonymous. When we get this information, the business is placed on the Watchlist (which is not published). We then send a polite (but firm) letter to the business giving them a chance to “see the light.”

If they take down the signs, no action is needed, we win. If they don’t, they are placed on the public Don’t Buy List and immediately begin to lose customers.

The letter goes something like this…

We have been advised that your business is posting signs which prohibit citizens from carrying licensed concealed handguns. We freely acknowledge that it is your right to post a sign which effectively announces “Rob me. I’m unarmed.”

But by posting, you force law-abiding citizens who have gone to great trouble and expense to earn permits to leave the firearms they carry for protection at home, thereby defeating the intent of the law. Attorneys note that you might incur liability exposure by preventing citizens from protecting themselves as allowed by Wisconsin law.

We do not regard personal protection reform as just a gun issue, but rather one of empowering citizens to protect themselves when police are not able. We continue …

Accordingly, we have created the “WGO Don’t Buy List” .

Your business is slated to be added to a periodically-updated list which is distributed to tens of thousands of gun owners through gun shops, gun shows, concealed handgun classes, the Internet, sporting clubs, our newsletter and, frankly, any other available means. Recipients of the list will be advised to consider whether a business supports their right to personal protection when deciding where to spend money.

Your business will be added to the WGO Don’t Buy List if you do not notify us immediately that either an error has been made or that you have removed the signs. Your business will be removed from the list only when signs are removed.

An estimated 270,000+ Wisconsin residents will eventually take concealed handgun classes.

With your support of this program, we will send copies of the WGO Don’t Buy List to as many of those people as possible.

With the economy being what it is today, no business in Wisconsin can afford to lose any customers. They sure can’t afford to alienate gun owners in a state where opening day of gun deer season is virtually a national holiday.

Please do two things today. One, bookmark this page. If you encounter an anti-CCW business, fill out the form and let us know about it.

This program is not for sissies or crybabies.

If you don’t mind being segregated to the back of the bus and treated like a second-class citizen because you’re a gun owner, then please e-mail me your best excuse as to why you can’t support this program.

If, however, you truly want to make a difference for gun rights, then please do what you can to support the WGO Don’t Buy List.

Also your financial support will give us the resources to print and mail the Don’t Buy List postcards, print and mail the list to gun owners and hire additional help to manage the program. Please consider donating to WGO.

Remember to bookmark the Don’t Buy List form page. And be on the lookout. If you spot an anti-gun sign, take a photo, jot down some notes and utilize this page.

Sincerely,

About:
WGO works for grassroots gun owners, not politicians. While many gun lobbies fight for “reasonable gun control,” WGO sets a higher standard: Defining the terrain of pro-gun political battle. Sure, many groups claim they’re “pro-gun” – all the while they provide cover for anti-gun deals cut by politicians – but only WGO truly informs gun owners, remaining committed to a 100% pro-gun position. We oppose all gun control – regardless of the political party – and work tirelessly to restore the Second Amendment. Visit www.wisconsingunowners.org

National Rifle Association

FAIRFAX, Va. --(Ammoland.com)- Recently a federal judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled that the federal ban on dealer sales of handguns to adults from the ages of 18 to 20 does not violate the Second Amendment.

The National Rifle Association plans to file a prompt appeal of the court’s ruling to the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

“We strongly disagree with this ruling,” said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.

“As we said when we filed this case, adults 18 and up have fought and died for American freedom throughout our country’s history. They are adults for virtually every legal purpose under federal and state law, and that should include the ability to buy handguns from licensed dealers to defend themselves, their homes and their families. Our fellow plaintiffs in this case are law-abiding and responsible young adults. We plan to defend their rights to the very end.”

The case is Jennings v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. A related case challenging Texas’ ban on issuance of concealed handgun licenses to adults in the same age group is still pending before the same court.

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military. Visit: www.nra.org

Florida Carry

Florida - -(Ammoland.com)- Florida Carry, Inc., through our attorneys, has requested that Governor Scott appoint a special prosecutor to investigate felony violations of state law by the Orange County Sheriff’s Office.

Sheriff Demings’ department utilized secure police databases, intended for use in the enforcement of law, for his office’s lobbying efforts and made private gun owner, concealed firearms licensee, and driver’s license data public despite multiple state and federal laws.

Orlando area State Attorney Lawson Lamar’s Office has refused to fully investigate this issue and cleared high ranking members of the Sheriff’s lobbying team of any wrongdoing within days despite clear violations of state and federal law.

There is a clear conflict of interest when the local prosecutor is tasked with investigating the department he relies on to bring him cases. A Special Prosecutor is necessary to remove any bias or perception of impropriety.

Click the links here to see the reply to our request for investigation from the Orlando Area State Attorney’s Office and our subsequent letter to Governor Scott requesting a Special Prosecutor be appointed.
We urgently need you to email Governor Scott NOW!

Include “Please appoint a special prosecutor for OCSO” in the Subject Line

E-mail Helper (feel free to cut, paste, and edit to suit)

—————————————————————————-
TO: rick.scott@eog.myflorida.com

SUBJECT: Please appoint a special prosecutor for OCSO!

Dear Governor Scott,

This e-mail is to express my great concern that senior members of the Orange County Sheriff’s Office utilized the private personal information of Florida gun owners, obtained from secure law enforcement databases, for their lobbying efforts in Tallahassee. This data is intended for use in the enforcement of law, not release to the public to support a political agenda. Despite state and federal law, an Orange County Sheriff’s Captain in charge of the lobbying office released Driver’s License photos in a list of Concealed Weapons/Firearms License (CWFL) holders and Gun Owners before testifying before a Senate Committee considering SB 234.

See the video here: http://www.wesh.com/news/29029438/detail.html

Florida Carry requested an investigation be opened by the local State Attorney but received a letter, days later, saying that there was no violation of law. I join Florida Carry in asking that a Special Prosecutor be appointed to investigate the felony release of a gun owner list, CWFL data, and other protected personal information.

See this link to the letter sent to your office:
http://www.floridacarry.org/images/stories/OCSO/florida%20carry%20-%20scott%20letter%20for%20spec%20pro.pdf

There is a clear conflict of interest when the local prosecutor is tasked with investigating the department he relies on to bring him cases. A Special Prosecutor is necessary to remove any bias or perception of impropriety.

Respectfully yours,

 

—————————————————————————-

About:
Florida Carry is a non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots organization dedicated to advancing the fundamental civil right of all Floridians to keep and bear arms for self defense as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I Section 8 of the Florida Constitution. Florida Carry, Inc. was organized by a group of Florida gun rights activists in order to better coordinate activities, effectively lobby the state legislature, and to provide a legal entity capable of filing suit to demand compliance with state and federal law. Florida Carry stands only to represent our members and the over 8 million gun owners of Florida. We are not beholden to any national organization’s agenda that may compromise that mission.
Florida Carry works tirelessly toward repealing and striking down ill-conceived gun control laws that have been proven to provide safe havens to criminals and be deadly to law abiding citizens.

Hawaii Concealed Carry

Hawaii -–(Ammoland.com)- Racism is a word that is, unfortunately, tossed around all too freely in modern-day America.

While it has become a catch-all villain in politics, responsible for all manner of Very Bad Things, there was a time when racism was a cherished institution in these United States. And although our nation has made great strides in confronting and vanquishing the evil of racism, some trappings remain, notably in the form of gun control.

The origin of gun control laws in America had little, if anything, to do with controlling crime; the laws were intended to prevent slaves and freed blacks from defending themselves or rebelling against the state and local governments which persecuted them relentlessly.

Throughout the history of our nation, gun control laws have been aimed primarily at blacks, and only in the last few decades has the focus of gun control shifted from targeting minorities to targeting all Americans.

NYC Slave Execution

Today, the laws on the books in Hawaii bear few substantive differences between the laws of the 1840’s South, other than the omission of race. These are the laws championed by the Brady Campaign and our politicians claim they are necessary to preserve order in our state.

Hogwash!

While they are no longer motivated by race, the laws we have now are just as discriminatory as they were 175 years ago. Today, our gun control laws discriminate against the disabled, the elderly, women, and anyone else who isn’t capable of stopping a violent crime with their fists. Of course, stopping a violent crime with nothing but bare hands and feet is feasible only with unarmed assailants; even BJ Penn would be hard-pressed to prevail, unarmed, against a sociopath with a gun.

Don’t believe that Hawaii’s gun laws have their roots in racism?

Let’s compare:

“That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a license therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefor, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefor.” –North Carolina statute, 1840, as quoted in Clayton Cramer’s paper The Racist Roots of Gun Control.

“Any person, not authorized by law, who carries concealed upon the person’s self or within any vehicle used or occupied by the person or who is found armed with any dirk, dagger, blackjack, slug shot, billy, metal knuckles, pistol, or other deadly or dangerous weapon shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and may be immediately arrested without warrant by any sheriff, police officer, or other officer or person.” — Hawaii Revised Statutes, § 134-51

We’ve come a long way, haven’t we? In no other area, save gun control, would otherwise sane people honestly try to claim that a law, previously used to subjugate an entire race, can be applied to the whole population for positive effect. It’s time to acknowledge the rights of law-abiding citizens, stand up for those rights, and reform Hawaii’s concealed carry laws.

For those interested in reading more on this topic, I highly recommend Clayton E. Cramer’s extensive paper on the subject, The Racist Roots of Gun Control.

About Hawaii Concealed Carry:
Hawaii Concealed Carry is a single-issue group formed with the mission to promote the restoration of Second Amendment rights contained within the constitution, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. We are a non-partisan group; our only care being, whether people support the right of self-defense and defense of others. Our philosophy is that through responsible use, education, communication, and understanding we can promote a safer environment for Hawaii residents, while reducing crime, and supporting our fundamental constitutional rights. Visit: www.hawaiiccw.com

Gun Rights Policies with John Snyder

Arlington, VA - “Now is the time to stand up for the right to self-defense of the little guy against the impersonal power of some corporations,” says John M. Snyder, named the Gun Dean by Human Events.

He says a case in point involves pharmacist Jeremy Hoven, who used his handgun, for which he had a state issued permit to carry a concealed firearm, to defend himself, others and a Walgreens pharmacy near Grand Rapids, Michigan from a 4:30 a.m. robbery attempt by two armed thugs in May.

When Hoven shot in the direction of the robbers, they fled. No one was hurt, according to reports. Walgreens fired Hoven for violating its “non-escalation” policy. Hoven has filed suit against Walgreens.

Snyder (www.GunRightsPolicies.org) thinks the Walgreens policy is ridiculous, even asinine. “It violates the right to self-defense and the right to life of the innocent.”

He says people could contact Walgreens and demand that it rescind its policy and substitute one that respects the rights of its employees and its customers. Citizens could contact Alan G. McNally, Chairman, Walgreens, 200 Wilmot Road, Deerfield IL 60015. Phone: (847) 914-2500.

“It’s time to stand up for truth, justice, freedom, and common sense,” says gun law expert Snyder.

The corporation then fired him for violating its non-escalation policy. Walgreens should rescind its asinine policy.

See Related: Gun Photos are “Offensive” at Walgreens

About John Snyder:
Named the Gun Dean by Human Events, “the senior rights activist in Washington” by Shotgun News, a “champion of the right to self-defense” by The Washington Times, and “dean of gun lobbyists” by The Washington Post and The New York Times, John M. Snyder has spent 45 years as a proponent of the individual Second Amendment civil right to keep and bear arms as a National Rifle Association editor, public affairs director of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, treasurer of the Second Amendment Foundation, and founder of www.GunRightsPolicies.org.

A former Jesuit seminarian, Snyder is founder/manager of Telum Associates, LL.C., founder/chairman of the St. Gabriel Possenti Society, Inc., a director of Council for America, and serves on the boards of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and the American Federation of Police & Concerned Citizens. He is also the author of the book Gun Saint. Visit: www.GunRightsPolicies.org

Australia’s Once Rugged Gun Owners Reduced to Criminals by Anti-Gun Nanny State

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- I’ve long been fascinated by Australia and its people.

A visit to that country has been high on my bucket list since I was just a kid, but more and more as I read about present-day Australia I am disappointed and saddened.

It seems that the days of rugged individualism and self-determination are gone from the land down under and the heroic characters of the past like Ned Kelly and Banjo Patterson have faded into the realm of myth and fairytales.

It wasn’t so long ago that the reputation of Australia included the belief that one Australian could easily – and happily – pommel any two men from any other country – more if she put down her baby. And Australian men had an even hardier reputation.

Sadly that’s no longer the case as Australia has apparently devolved into a namby-pamby society of effete urbanites, hen-pecked by anglophilic nannies and socialist, world-citizen politicians who revel in Australia’s rugged history while criminalizing and quashing any hint of such thought or action in present day.

My disappointment in Australia turned into outright disgust recently when I happened upon two stories in Australian media, both dated August 10. The first, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the government of New South Wales had revoked the firearm license of Richard Hawkins, an 89-year old veteran of World War II, because the tool chest in which he locked up his two .22 rifles did not meet the government’s security standards. This was discovered during a routine “safe storage audit.”

Hawkins then disassembled the rifles and gave them to a local locksmith – the son of a war buddy – for safe-keeping until he could get a more secure storage container. Unfortunately one of the rifles was a semi-auto and therefore a “Category C” firearm requiring a special license to possess – a license the locksmith did not hold. The hearing officer cited these errors as proof of Hawkin’s inability to understand the rules of firearms ownership. The magistrate expressed further concern that the old vet was only able to shoot from a supported position due to back and neck injuries he sustained fighting for Australia’s freedom against Nazi and Japanese aggressors.

“In my opinion, it is not in the public interest for a person to hold a firearms license if that person does not have the physical capacity to safely use a firearm, including use in unexpected or emergency situations.”

Unexpected or emergency situations?
These are .22 caliber rifles which are required to be locked, unloaded, in a government approved storage container at all times except when actually being used for government approved purposes. Mr. Hawkins, who lives alone on secluded land out in the country, explained that he used the .22s for pest control. What response to “unexpected or emergency situations” is this judge possibly referring to? Certainly not self-defense.

Then ABC Newcastle reported that during another routine “safe storage audit,” a loaded gun and ammunition were discovered locked in a farmer’s government approved firearms safe.

The nanny from the gun control coalition explained: “There’s a reason why firearms and ammunition are separated and that is for safety, particularly because guns are kept in the home. We need to ensure the persons that are in the home are as safe as possible. This is because of accidents or suicide or potential domestic violence situations.”

Clearly the farmer in this case, the husband of Pru Goward, a member of the New South Wales Parliament, like the battle-hardened veteran and life-long gun owner Mr. Hawkins, needs this nanny to keep him and his family safe. His case was scheduled to go to trial later this month.

Mr. Hawkins asked an important question when the police advised him that they were revoking his firearm license: “Haven’t you blokes got anything better to do than going around harassing war veterans?”

Seriously, how much time, money, and manpower is wasted in registering, inspecting, and confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens – and prosecuting those good citizens? Australia has spent Billions of dollars on this nonsense while their crime rates soared. At this point their violent crime rates are in decline, as they are in the US and Canada, but they are declining from record highs set after the people allowed themselves to be disarmed.

What could have been accomplished if all of that money and energy had been focused on criminals rather than law-abiding gun owners?

What’s most disheartening is that the Australian people are not outraged and revolted by stories like these. Sadly, the beautiful “land down under” has followed the UK into a true-to-life Monty Python joke.

About:
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition is a project of Neal Knox Associates, Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org

Copyright © 2011 Neal Knox Associates – The most trusted name in the rights movement.

New Jersey Second Amendment Society

New Jersey --(Ammoland.com)- Some Pediatricians are saying that when I bring my children in for a routine medical visit they need to question me about my personal property - specifically whether I have any guns in my home.

According to the doctors they don’t want my child to become a statistic and my handgun is at the top of their list of dangerous items that they insist must be removed from my home in order to accomplish that goal.

The Governor of Florida passed a law this past June, making it illegal for doctors to question parents or children on the presence of firearms in the home as a standard of care. For example, have you started solid foods yet, does your baby sleep through the night and oh by the way, do you have any firearms in your home?

The American Academy of Pediatrics will drown you in statistics of people injured in gun related “incidents” which they use to point to how dangerous guns, particularly handguns, can be. However, a percentage of these statistics surely includes death or injury encountered by the very people who initiated these crimes and were fought off by their intended victims. And what about all the lives that have been saved by guns, children’s lives, due to the presence of a defensive gun in the home.

The public will never hear about this because it is impossible to measure the positive effect of gun ownership. Even if it was possible, the media is not interested in reporting it for a variety of reasons. As it has been stated before, crime prevented is a statistic that does not exist. But just for a minute, consider how many children were spared kidnapping or torturous acts simply because their parents had the means to fight off an attacker and the willingness to do so.

Pediatricians are ignoring the long and positive history of gun ownership in this country (just visit the National Firearms Museum in Virginia for proof.) The reason is that it just does not fit their agenda, which is to have handguns banned. This goal has in the past been openly stated on the AAP website (American Academy of Pediatrics). Despite what they are saying, gun safety education is not the end goal for their patients, it is just an interim way to open up the controversial topic of gun ownership and push their own political agenda. If educating their patients about gun safety is a goal for pediatricians then why not stand behind gun safety programs in schools for all children?

That would surely be a positive step towards saving lives and it does not invade anyone’s privacy.

Of course, there is no lobby or political controversy surrounding regulation of swimming pools or the depth of water allowed in bathtubs or even where parents are storing cutlery or power tools in their homes. There also is no right granted to the people of this country in the US constitution to own any of these items, as there is for firearms in the Second Amendment. There are many household items that can be dangerous when children are not being given the proper supervision. In fact a recent study shows that accidents related to firearms in the home occur at extremely low rates compared to incidents like drowning, poisoning, and serious falls. To see long list of potentially hazardous household items, visit the Second Amendment Sisters website ( see below or http://www.2asisters.org/PhysicianAffidavit.pdf) for a nice affidavit you can ask your doctor to sign if questioned about gun ownership.

It should also be noted that while the Florida law prohibits pediatricians from asking about guns in the home as a standard practice of care – it does not prohibit asking about guns when it is of a relevant nature to the medical care of the presenting patient. As a social worker, I understand this distinction and the doctors should too. If they feel a patient is at risk they are not tongue tied. If parents have a history of neglectful behavior or openly suicidal patients are residents of the home, then no one is saying questions can’t be asked.

The non specific type of questioning can also have a negative effect on the ever developing doctor patient relationship. There have been cases of patients who were questioned by a doctor about gun ownership and refused to answer based on privacy. They have been told to leave the office (and billed for the visit). In order to practice good medical care, pediatricians need to have good reporting from parents on the physical state of their children. If parents feel they may be judged by their child’s doctor, they might not share all important medical information and this without question will have a direct effect on health care.

I chose my pediatrician based on how effective I thought she would be when counseling me on medical issues. I will always be the primary advocate in receiving good medical care for my children and the doctor I choose is first and foremost a facilitator in this goal. I am not looking for a mentor or a friend or a teacher, a doctor is not all knowing and a good relationship with a family develops over time. If I want expert advice on storing firearms, I will go to an expert in this area (I happen to be a firearms instructor so on this one I am covered.) In fact, I respect a doctor more who knows his or her limitations when it comes to offering advice on topics they do not understand and who is willing to defer to a parent on issues of care that are well within the scope and ability of people who have chosen to raise children. I don’t want my attorney husband writing prescriptions for antibiotics and I don’t want my doctor telling me how to store my guns.

After working in an inner city hospital and counseling families with children at risk, I can say with certainty that the guns that were present in the homes of these children would not have been discovered through the routine questioning pediatricians are now advocating. These guns were brought into children’s homes by boyfriends and simply left there until they were brought to the hospital by the mothers. These illegal guns will not disappear even if the goal of the American Academy of Pediatrics is to remove handguns from the homes of every law abiding citizen. No one is arguing against saving the lives of innocent children or doing everything in our power to see our youth reach adulthood. But the doctors aren’t fooling anyone here. Routine questioning of parents about guns stored in the home is (at minimum) not the answer. There is far more work to be done to save the next generation and it serves no purpose for pediatricians to alienate the very people who can be a true partner.

Physician Firearms Advice Affidavit

Shari Spivack is a firearms instructor, wife and mother, and a woman who believes in the right to keep and bear arms for legitimate purposes. Shari is also a Board Member and Officer of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society.

About:
New Jersey Second Amendment Society – Our mission is to promote the free exercise of Second Amendment rights within the community and Legislature of New Jersey, to educate the community regarding the enjoyable, safe, and responsible use of firearms, and to engender a sense of camaraderie and fellowship among the members and their families. Visit: www.nj2as.com

AR15.com Forum - Thread Spotlight 'Anti Gun Media'

AR15.com

Honeoye Falls, NY -(Ammoland.com)- This month’s featured thread brings up some interesting issues, but the one I am focusing on is that of the left wing media altering the facts to drive their agenda.

The thread is titled NBC apologizes for cutting “under God” from Pledge of Allegiance before U.S. Open and revolves around the production staff at NBC intentionally editing out the phrase “under God” from their US open coverage of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Now, there were many arguments in the thread about whether the phrase should even be in the Pledge or whether the Pledge is ‘communist indoctrination’. Those are secondary issues though when looking at how this major news media outlet chose to frame their broadcast to fit their political agenda.

It is of course nothing new for television and print media to do these types of things but it is something that can not be ignored. This is obviously a religious issue for many, but let’s remember that it just as easily could have been a 2nd amendment issue.

How often do we see the words “assault rifle” used in coverage of criminal acts? How often do we see “ammunition stockpile” used when a gun owner is arrested with a few hundred rounds? I bet you could pick up any large city’s daily this morning and read about how “the gun show loophole” is allowing thousands of firearms to get into the hands of criminals.

As responsible gun owners we know these things are sensationalized and sometimes even flat out made up by, for lack of a better word, ‘ignorant’ reporters and news editors.

It’s not a stretch to say that if this had been coverage of a firearms related story this ‘news’ agency would have found a way to keep the words “shall not be infringed” from being published when the second amendment was referenced.

The camel’s nose under the tent? I think we are at the point of the entire camel sharing our sleeping bags.

If we as consumers allow these news outlets to continue to frame the facts in the manner of their choosing, it won’t be long (some would argue it’s already too late) until our history as a free people is eroded and twisted to show some liberal vision of what should have happened throughout the story of our great country as opposed to what really has happened.

The only way to stop this behavior is to hit these news agencies where it hurts them the most- their wallets. Conservatives and moderates carry a big stick when it comes to consumer spending. What would happen if we were to all stand up and let the major advertisers of these companies know that we will not be spending our hard earned cash on their products as long as they continued to support this type of politically driven news?

We can always just sit back and complain about how things should be different. That the media should be an impartial watchdog for the citizen, and how unfortunate it is that certain elites that control these companies can now push their belief systems on us and our children. But with just a little effort and a little energy, we can stand up and say enough is enough.

It was interesting to note that while NBC apologized if anyone was offended, the well written apology was couched in terms that implied that this was not the first or last time they intended to use this behavior.

Take a few minutes to read the thread and the story attached. Leave your 2 cents if you’d like. But, more importantly take a few minutes to fire off an email to a couple of NBC’s advertisers and let them know just exactly how you feel about this issue.

If enough of us stand together maybe we can reverse the trend of politically driven media coverage from our country’s major news outlets.

About:
AR15.Com originated in 1996 as a mailing list for firearm enthusiasts. As the years passed and interest grew, a website came into existence to present those same enthusiasts with a means to collect, share, and explore information. Shortly afterwards, a bulletin board was added to create a more interactive experience for the growing list of users. The site was still in it’s infancy, but was growing in popularity. Visit: www.ar15.com

National Rifle Association

FAIRFAX, Va. --(Ammoland.com)- There’s an old saying, “Birds of a feather flock together” and that certainly confirms that the attack on gun rights by pediatricians and doctors in Florida is blatant gun control politics.

We thought you should know what these lawsuit threats from pediatricians is really about…..

Ropes & Grey, the law firm that has represented the “Brady Campaign,” the nation’s largest anti-gun/gun ban organization in lawsuits, is also representing pediatricians and threatening a lawsuit to usurp the privacy rights and gun rights of patients in Florida. (visit here to see the law firm connection: Ropes & Grey represents Brady Campaign http://tiny.cc/ce3vk )

The Brady Campaign’s Washington-based law firm of Ropes & Grey is also now representing the Florida chapters of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American College of Physicians. (click here to see article: 3 doctors groups suing over HB-155 )

Last week, in a brazen attempt to intimidate and coerce Governor Scott into vetoing HB-155 — Privacy of Firearm Owners, lawyers from that firm representing those physicians groups, sent a threatening letter to Governor Scott.

The letter signed by the lawyers on behalf of the pediatricians said “…we intend to file a lawsuit against you and other state officials in the event that this legislation becomes law.”
(click here to see letter contained in news article: Threatening letter to Governor )

GOVERNOR SCOTT SIGNED THE BILL YESTERDAY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HB-155 will keep politics out of examining rooms.

(click here for a copy of the bill HB-155, Privacy of Firearms Owners )

BACKGROUND ON HB-155

Banning guns and removing guns from private homes is an agenda being of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). For years, their website made it clear that their agenda was banning guns.

On 1/26/2011 we downloaded the following from their website:

WHERE WE STAND: GUN SAFETY
The most effective way to prevent firearm-related injury to children is to keep guns out of homes and communities. The American Academy of Pediatrics strongly supports gun-control legislation. We believe that handguns, deadly air guns, and assault weapons should be banned.

Until handguns are banned, we recommend that handguns and handgun ammunition be regulated, that restrictions be placed on handgun ownership, and that the number of privately owned handguns be reduced. Firearms should be removed from the environments where children live and play, but if they are not, they must be stored locked and unloaded. Loaded firearms and unloaded firearms and ammunition represent a serious danger to children.”

And this excerpt for advice to parents:

ADVICE TO PARENTS

The best way to keep your children safe from injury or death from guns is to NEVER have a gun in the home.
* Do not purchase a gun, especially a handgun.
* Remove all guns present in the home.

Following our exposure of their gun ban agenda, AAP mysteriously changed the text of their position on their website to hide their agenda — but not before legislators and gun rights supporters saw the truth.

The bill is designed to make doctors “practice medicine” NOT “practice gun ban politics” in their examination rooms. As a parent or a patient you have a right to protect your privacy about gun ownership. How many guns you own and where they are stored is your personal private information.

Doctors need to treat illness, not guns. Pediatricians and other physicians, in growing numbers, have been prying into our personal lives, invading our privacy and straying from issues relating to disease and medicine by questioning children or their parents about gun ownership.

We take our children to physicians for medical care, not moral judgment, political harassment, and privacy intrusions – and that is what HB-155 prohibits.

This bill is to help families who have been complaining about the growing political agenda being carried out in examination rooms by doctors and medical staffs – and the arrogant berating if a patient refuses to answer questions that violate privacy rights and offend common decency.

Horrified parents have described nurses entering the answers to gun questions into laptop computers to become a part of medical records. They have become concerned about whether those records can be used by the government or by insurance companies to deny health care coverage because a family exercises a civil right in owning firearms.

As parents, we are responsible for our children’s safety. We don’t need doctors pushing their anti-gun politics on us or our kids. We need them to spend their time practicing medicine and not prying into our personal lives on issues that have nothing to do with disease, its cure, or its eradication.

Don’t be fooled. This is not about the First Amendment, or gun safety or medical care. IT IS PURE, RAW, GUN BAN POLITICS. Recognize it. Don’t forget it. Help fight it.

National Rifle Association

FAIRFAX, Va. --(Ammoland.com)- Last week, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee rejected an amendment by Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), which proposed to allow the Attorney General to disapprove the NICS check of a person who has been placed on the FBI’s secret “terrorist watchlist.”

Similar legislation has been introduced by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.).

The NRA opposes all of these proposals for a variety of reasons, chiefly that they propose to deny a constitutionally protected, fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms without due process of law.

While some of the proposals pretend to allow a person to appeal his watchlisting in court, the proposals would prevent the watchlisted person or his lawyer from examining and challenging the government’s “evidence,” the accused would not be entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers, and the judge would not be allowed to examine the government’s evidence in full.

Gun control supporters pretend that proposals like the Quigley amendment are designed to prevent large numbers of terrorists from acquiring firearms. However, 95 percent of people on the watchlist are already prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms, because they are not U.S. citizens or aliens legally present in the United States.

Furthermore, the watchlist contains the names of people who are not under investigation, or who are only under preliminary investigation, for potential ties to terrorism.

NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox has sent a letter to Congress to outline NRA’s concerns. To read the letter, please click here.

For additional information, please click here.

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military. Visit: www.nra.org

CCRKBA.org

BELLEVUE, WA – -(Ammoland.com)- After Senator Joseph Lieberman released contents of his letter to Attorney General Eric Holder supporting a proposed long gun sales reporting requirement in southwest states, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today urged Lieberman to instead support an on-going investigation of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ botched Project Gunrunner.

In a letter to Sen. Lieberman, CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb reminded him that press reports and documents relating to Gunrunner indicate that the ATF “abetted the movement of firearms into the illicit gun market, and ultimately to drug cartels in Mexico.” Gottlieb also expressed his surprise that Lieberman’s letter to Holder did not mention either Gunrunner or Operation Fast-and-Furious, a project handled by the Phoenix ATF field office. Both of those efforts are believed to have let thousands of guns to be “walked” into the hands of Mexican criminals.

“I am astonished that you now support a strategy that places firearms dealers and their customers under additional scrutiny of an agency that may very well be largely responsible for creating a problem you now expect it to resolve,” Gottlieb wrote. “The agency to which you now advocate giving more power over firearms transactions in southwest states was responsible for allowing criminal suspects to complete multiple purchases of so-called ‘assault rifles,’ despite the concerns of those licensed dealers you would have ATF micro-manage, and over the objections of its own field agents.”

Gottlieb reminds the senator that ATF has recently shuffled its entire Phoenix management team, moving the two top agents who oversaw Fast-and-Furious to ATF headquarters in Washington, D.C., where one is now cooperating with investigations launched by Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa.

“It is not the southwest firearms dealers who need investigating, Senator, but the ATF,” he said. “It is not those gun dealers who should be held accountable for the flood of illicit firearms into Mexico, but the ATF officials who not only allowed it to happen, but encouraged it.

“Instead of supporting this new reporting strategy, I urge you to instead exercise your considerable influence to support Senator Grassley’s investigation of the Gunrunner controversy,” Gottlieb concluded.

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at www.ccrkba.org or by email to InformationRequest@ccrkba.org.

California Rifle and Pistol Association

Los Angles, CA --(Ammoland.com)- Through their joint Legal Action Project, the NRA and CRPA Foundation are sponsoring two new legal actions to enforce a 16-year old court Order against the City of LA over its concealed weapons permit (CCW) issuance policies.

Under Penal Code § 12050, et seq., the LAPD has an obligation to process applications for CCWs, and to issue CCWs if the applicant has “good cause.” For many years, the City and the LAPD had a policy of not making applications available, never finding good cause to exist, and effectively prohibiting the issuance of any CCWs.

Two lawsuits filed in the 1990′s were supposed to change that. But despite a binding settlement in those suits that resulted in LAPD being ordered by a court to implement new policies, the LAPD has abandoned these court ordered policies for handling citizens’ applications for CCWs, and has fallen back on its old habits.

The City’s unlawful refusal to properly process CCW applications was challenged in two lawsuits in 1992 and 1994. To settle the suits the LAPD agreed to implement a specific and transparent court ordered procedure to provide clarity and fairness for citizens applying for CCWs. The LAPD agreed that all citizens who request a CCW permit application would be provided a CCW application at any LAPD station house, that the application would be accompanied by a written copy of the LAPD’s procedure for handling the application, and the applicants would be informed of the procedures for appealing the denial of a CCW application. The settlement also resulted in the establishment of a Citizens Advisory Review Panel, made up of appointed citizens who would review CCW applications denied by the LAPD and make recommendations regarding whether the LAPD should reverse its denial of the CCW application.

A memorandum discussing the suits and their history is posted here.

The LAPD has repeatedly failed to honor its legal obligations under the settlements. The LAPD no longer makes CCW applications and a written copy of the CCW policy and appeal process available at all station houses. And the LAPD is ignoring the recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Review Panel and has instead enacted a de facto policy of again issuing no CCWs, despite whatever showing of good cause the applicants might make.

So in a city with almost 4 million citizens, with some 300 CCW applications being made per year, LAPD has only granted 24 active CCWs. Citizens who have had credible and ongoing threats made against them and their families, and those who carry large sums of cash as part of job and are high-profile robbery targets, have been repeatedly denied CCWs despite meeting the “good cause” criteria for receiving CCWs that the LAPD was forced to agree to years ago.

To rectify this situation, two new legal actions are being pursued. The first new court action is a motion to enforce the court’s old order in the 1994 case, Assenza v. City of Los Angeles. Some of the original plaintiffs from that case seek to force the LAPD to reinstate its agreed-to policy of providing applications and copies of its written policy at all LAPD station houses. In support of its motion, NRA grassroots activist citizens who were recruited to investigate the LAPD’s practices have submitted declarations about their recent attempts to get CCW applications. They were frustrated by uncooperative officers at individual station houses, all of whom had a complete lack of understanding of the LAPD’s application process, and who in almost all instances could not provide a CCW application to the requesting citizen, much less a copy of the LAPD’s written policy. Perhaps most egregiously, LAPD officers bluntly told citizens that unless they were celebrities, they shouldn’t even bother filling out the CCW application because they would be denied a CCW as a matter of LAPD policy.

The second action is a new lawsuit, Davis v. City of Los Angeles. The nine plaintiffs in this new action, some of whom have had CCW applications pending and unresolved with the LAPD for years, have submitted sworn declarations attesting to a litany of missteps and abuses by LAPD in its handling of their CCW applications. These abuses include not only the failures to provide applications and copies of the written policies at stationhouses, but refusals to timely consider their applications, failures to respond to inquiries regarding the status of applications, failures to acknowledge the availability of the Citizens Advisory Review Panel as a method of appealing denial, and the failure to give any weight to recommendations by the Citizens Advisory Review Panel.

Second Amendment challenges may be incorporated into these lawsuits as the case law develops in the Ninth Circuit, where another NRA/CRPAF LAP case, Peruta v. San Diego, is currently being heard.

Seventeen years ago the NRA and CRPA joined forces to fight local gun bans being written and pushed in California by the gun ban lobby. Their coordinated efforts became the NRA/CRPA “Local Ordinance Project” (LOP) – a statewide campaign to fight ill conceived local efforts at gun control and educate politicians about available programs that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. The NRA/CRPA LOP has had tremendous success in beating back most of these anti-self-defense proposals.

In addition to fighting local gun bans, for decades the NRA has been litigating dozens of cases in California courts to promote the right to self-defense and the Second Amendment. In the post Heller and McDonald legal environment, NRA and CRPA Foundation have formed the NRA/CRPA Foundation Legal Action Project (LAP), a joint venture to pro-actively strike down ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances and advance the rights of firearms owners, specifically in California. Sometimes, success is more likely when LAP’s litigation efforts are kept low profile, so the details of every lawsuit are not always released. To see a partial list of the LAP’s recent accomplishments, or to contribute to the NRA or to the NRA / CRPAF LAP and support this and similar Second Amendment cases, visit www.nraila.com and www.crpafoundation.org.

Wisconsin Carry

Wisconsin --(Ammoland.com)- Last fall five Wisconsin Carry members were peacefully enjoying dinner at a Madison area Culvers restaurant.

Like thousands of Wisconsin residents, they carry a sidearm for self-defense as a daily practice in the only manner currently provided by Wisconsin law.

After a 911 caller inquired as to the legality of open-carry, Madison police arrived en masse and illegally demanded identification from all five.

Two members who politely declined to provide ID were wrongfully cited for obstruction of justice. (Wisconsin, a free state, does not require you produce identification when you have done nothing wrong.) Those citations were rescinded 2 days later and all 5 were mailed citations for disorderly conduct despite no evidence of a disturbance.

Details of that initial incident are available on Wisconsin Carry’s website www.wisconsincarry.org. Click on the “Sept. 23rd 2010″ blog heading for details including the audio of the 911 call.

Wisconsin Carry filed a federal civil lawsuit against the City of Madison and Police Chief Noble Wray on September 29, 2010. That lawsuit can be viewed here: www.wisconsincarry.org/pdf/Madison/MadisonComplaint.pdf

Wisconsin Carry also retained, on behalf of our members, notable defense attorney Chris Van Wagner, principal of the Madison law firm Van Wagner & Wood www.vanwagnerwood.com/ to contest the wrongfully issued disorderly conduct citations.

Today, Wisconsin Carry is pleased to announce that Attorney Van Wagner has informed us that all of the charges against the “Madison 5″ have been dismissed.

According to Attorney Van Wagner “The Madison City Attorney agreed after a full review of the police investigation and 911 call that there was absolutely no disturbance created by our members and that the disorderly conduct citations were inappropriate”. Van Wagner also added that “The ONLY disturbance created on that Saturday evening was by a mass of uniformed Madison police officers and squads arriving to investigate law-abiding citizens having dinner”

Questions about this incident and subsequent actions by Wisconsin Carry and our attorney may be directed to Wisconsin Carry or Attorney Chris Van Wagner. Wisconsin Carry will shortly be filing a second civil lawsuit against Madison Police Chief Noble Wray and the City of Madison to obtain damages on behalf of our members for their wrongful detainment and costs associated with disposing of the citations.

Carry On,

About:
Wisconsin Carry, Inc. is a non-profit corporation dedicated to the preservation and reclamation of the rights of law-abiding Wisconsin residents to carry in the manner of their choosing. We believe that “open carry” and “concealed carry” are choices to be made by law-abiding citizens based on their situation and preference. Wisconsin Carry, like many gun-rights organizations in Wisconsin, is investing a great deal of resources to get Wisconsin law changed to allow concealed carry this next legislative session by proposing Constitutional Carry. Wisconsin Carry, Inc. will continue to use legal recourse to deter unlawful treatment of law-abiding Wisconsin residents who currently exercise their right to open carry, and soon will exercise their right to concealed carry in Wisconsin. Visit: www.wisconsincarry.org

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

Texas - -(Ammoland.com)- One opponent of Texas Senate Bill 354, which would legalize licensed concealed carry (of handguns) on Texas college campuses, has resorted to blatantly false statements to make his case.

Faced with a dearth of fact-based evidence opposing his position, Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) has conjured up a fiscal boogeyman, telling anybody who’ll listen that the passage of SB 354 would cost state colleges millions in additional insurance premiums. But like most fairy tales, this one is borne out of pure fantasy.

On April 7, Senator Ellis lashed out against SB 354 on the floor of the Texas Senate. Addressing the bill’s author—Senator Jeff Wentworth (R-San Antonio)—Senator Ellis proclaimed, “I’m told by the community colleges it’s going to raise their insurance costs for liability insurance, despite the fact that under your bill you say they have no liability. But you can’t stop the insurance rates from going up. I’m told that one of my community colleges—they think it’ll cost a million dollars.”

Apparently accepting Senator Ellis’s claim at face value, Senator Mario Gallegos, Jr. (D-Houston) immediately withdrew his support from the bill. A few weeks later, Gallegos told the Texas Tribune, “What’s embedded in this bill, and is not being told, is the unfunded mandate that this bill produces.”

Although Senator Ellis did not name the community college to which he referred, other sources clearly indicate that he was referring to Houston Community College. The HCC board of trustees recently passed a resolution claiming that SB 354 would create a “fiscal burden” for the institution, and Dan Arguijo, spokesman for Houston Community College, recently told the Texas Tribune that HCC’s annual insurance premiums would likely rise by as much as much as $780,000 to $900,000.

Senator Wentworth and others immediately questioned these claims, pointing out that SB 354 provides immunity to colleges, that the fiscal note attached to SB 354 makes no mention of rising insurance costs, and that none of the 71 college campuses outside of Texas that currently allow concealed carry on campus have reported a rise in insurance premiums. W. Scott Lewis, Texas legislative director for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, asked, “On what basis are we expected to believe that college campuses will become the first and only locations in Texas to experience higher insurance rates as a result of honoring state-issued concealed handgun licenses?”

These lingering questions prompted Robert Greene —a concealed handgun instructor, former police officer, and licensed insurance agent— to do a little investigating of his own.

Mr. Greene noted, “In all my years of writing commercial insurance for businesses, schools, churches, and the like, I have never had an underwriting questionnaire ask or even allude to whether or not the insured allows CHL holders to carry on the premises. I inquired of my underwriters, and not one indicated that this had ever been an underwriting question.”

When Mr. Greene contacted Senator Ellis’s office, he was told that Austin Community College is among the institutions reporting that its insurance premiums would increase. But when Mr. Greene contacted ACC Environmental Health & Safety Coordinator Robert Rogers, the person in charge of purchasing liability insurance for the college, Mr. Rogers was adamant that he had neither spoken to anyone regarding the school’s insurance premiums nor indicated in any way that those premiums would increase if SB 354 were to pass.

Mr. Rogers even went so far as to point out that, per the Texas Tort Claims Act of 1969, colleges and universities would be immune from liability for the actions of a CHL holder because a concealed handgun license is issued by the state, not the college. He then drew a comparison to state driver’s licenses and the fact that, because colleges must let licensed drivers use the roads passing through campus, colleges are immune from liability for the actions of drivers on campus.

Mr. Greene got a similar response when he spoke to Phillip Dendy, director of risk management for the University of Texas. Mr. Dendy pointed out that that the University of Texas rarely purchases liability insurance because the university is a state entity and, for all intents and purposes, insured by the State of Texas. He concurred with Mr. Rogers’ assessment that the Texas Tort Claims Act would provide immunity to colleges and universities.

Mr. Greene then contacted United Educators Insurance Company, the insurance carrier for Houston Community College, and spoke with Marketing Manager Chris Robinson. Mr. Robinson agreed that, in light of the immunity offered by both the bill itself and the Texas Tort Claims Act, there should be no expectation that colleges will experience higher insurance premiums if SB 354 passes.

These conversations, coupled with his personal experience in the insurance business, led Mr. Greene to conclude that Senator Ellis’s claims are unfounded.

W. Scott Lewis concurred, stating, “At best, Senator Ellis has failed to do his due diligence before repeating the dubious claims of a few college officials. At worst, he has resorted to lies to try to justify an unjustifiable position.”

ABOUT STUDENTS FOR CONCEALED CARRY ON CAMPUS
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) is a national, non-partisan, grassroots organization comprising over 44,000 college students, professors, college employees, parents of college students, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of state-issued concealed handgun licenses should be allowed the same measure of personal protection on college campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else. SCCC has members in all fifty states and the District of Columbia. SCCC is not affiliated with the NRA or any other organization. SCCC extends an open invitation to publicly debate representatives from any organization or institution opposed to “campus carry.”

Gun Owners of America

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- The University of Kentucky has fired a graduate student and former anesthesia technician, Michael Mitchell, for keeping a gun in his car a mile away from the university hospital where he was employed.

The university then proceeded to try to deny Mitchell unemployment compensation by claiming, unsuccessfully, that he was fired for misconduct. A hearing officer found against the University of Kentucky and in favor of Mitchell.

All this, despite the fact that Mitchell had a Kentucky concealed carry permit, believed he had fully complied with Kentucky law governing concealed carry, and therefore cooperated fully with police and university authorities.

And finally, Kentucky Revised Statutes sec. 27.020 seems to prevent a state institution like the University of Kentucky from interfering with the Second Amendment rights of a concealed carry permit holder. That section holds, in part, that “[n]o person or organization, public or private, shall prohibit” a concealed carry permit holder from transporting a firearm in his vehicle in accordance with law.

So……. What’s up with the University of Kentucky?

The answer is that it’s probably not much different from many Left-leaning universities. After all, Virginia Tech fought hard and successfully to keep guns off its campus – nearly a year, to the day, before a crazed gunman killed 31 people on that campus.

Mitchell appealed a ruling from Fayette Circuit Court Judge Pamela Goodwine, who dismissed his suit against the University of Kentucky because its anti-gun animus “was not a violation of public policy.”

Judge Goodwine claims to have read U.S. Supreme Court language concerning “exceptions” to the Second Amendment. This language is called “dictum” and is non-binding.

But Goodwine seems to have missed the point of the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller: Americans have a constitutional right to use firearms to defend themselves.

Kentucky concealed carry permit holders aren’t a problem in America. Rather, the problem is liberal anti-gun institutions who want to disarm their students and employees -– at the same time that they are adamantly incompetent in their efforts to protect persons on their property.

Mitchell appealed directly to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which voted 5-2 to hear his appeal. A win in this lawsuit will end the illegal and discriminatory practice on the university.

ACTION:
Our friends at Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed (KC3) have set up a fund for Michael Mitchell’s legal defense. Please visit https://www.kc3.com/donation.php to contribute to this important cause. Any contribution, however small, to this effort to fight on behalf of the Second Amendment would be appreciated.

About:
Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1975 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. `The only no comprise gun lobby in Washington’ – Ron Paul

Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA --(Ammoland.com)- The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit challenging a law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that denies legal resident aliens the licenses required to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense, or purchase any kind of firearm.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Joining SAF in this lawsuit are Commonwealth Second Amendment, a Massachusetts grassroots organization, and two British citizens who reside in the commonwealth. They are represented by attorney Joseph M. Hickson III of Springfield. Defendants are Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert C. Haas, Northboro Police Chief Mark k. Leahy and Jason A. Guida, director of the Firearms Records Bureau in Chelsea.

The lawsuit alleges that Christopher M. Fletcher of Cambridge and Eoin M. Pryal of Northboro – both legal resident aliens – have been specifically denied the ability to obtain a Firearms Identification Card or a License to Carry of any kind. Before moving to Massachusetts, Fletcher lived in California, where he had a Basic Firearms Safety certificate and Handgun Safety certificate, which allowed him to purchase and own firearms including handguns. Pryal, who is married to a citizen of this country, and had a shotgun certificate and international dealer’s license while living in the United Kingdom.

“One of the fundamental principles in this country is that people have rights,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Among those rights is the right of self-defense, especially in one’s own home. Christopher Fletcher and Eoin Pryal live here legally, they have been firearms owners, they are productive members of the community, yet they are being denied a basic right by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This is wrong and our court challenge aims to correct that.”

“This lawsuit truly illustrates the contradictory and irrational nature of the Commonwealths’ firearms laws,” Comm2A President Brent Carlton added. “Governor Deval Patrick’s administration has broadly supported the immigrant community and noted our dependence on them for our continued prosperity while Massachusetts law treats those same individuals as inherently dangerous enough to justify their exclusion from certain fundamental rights protected by the Constitution of the United States. This blanket prohibition runs contrary to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and today’s challenge is supported overwhelmingly by well-established legal precedent.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.

University of Kentucky HandGuns in Cars Lawsuit Heads to KY Supreme Court

Kentucky Concealed Carry Coalition

Frankfort, Ky --(Ammoland.com)- Just this week our attorneys were notified by the Supreme Court of Kentucky that they would hear the appeal of the lawsuit brought by Michael Mitchell against the University of Kentucky, charging them with wrongful termination.

The gist of the case is this: Mr. Mitchell was employed by UK at the medical center and when his supervisors learned that he had a fi rearm in his car, in the parking lot at Commonwealth Stadium, they seized his legally-stored handgun and subsequently terminated his employment.

Mr. Mitchell contacted KC3 and we agreed to support him in his suit for damages against UK.

Our attorneys, Stephen Wides and Christopher Hunt of Lexington, brought the suit in Fayette circuit court. The judge ruled against them and for UK. They decided to skip the Court of Appeals and proceed directly to the Supreme Court and have been successful. As of this time no date has been set for the arguments but the justices voted 5-2 to put the case on the docket.

UK has maintained that they have a unique right to keep people from having firearms in cars on their lots, in a bizarre reading of the statutes that is inconsistent with the application of the law in every other circumstance in the state. Nowhere else may a school or employer bar anyone from having a fi rearm in their car as long as it’s not removed from that car or brandished. Yet UK feels justified in their incomprehensible interpretation of the statute, and used that to justify fi ring Mr. Mitchell.

Now the case is moving to the highest court in Kentucky where we’re confident that that they’ll KC3 has funded this lawsuit exclusively We will soon have donation buttons on our Mr. Mitchell has suffered an indignity at the hands of these bureaucrats, who’ve displayed an arrogant disregard for his rights and the law. Now we stand poised to make them pay for that indignity and to establish that the colleges in Kentucky are also bound by the same laws that govern our citizens.

About Kentucky Concealed Carry Coalition:
Since 1994, KC3 has led the struggle to secure your right to carry a legally concealed weapon
for your defense and the safety of your loved ones. Visit: www.kc3blog.blogspot.com

Dumb Gun Laws In New York

Letters to the AmmoLand Editor: Got something on your mind? Let us know and you can see it here.

New York --(Ammoland.com)-From the perspective of a long time Second Amendment activist, I have been forced to conclude that New York has some of the most Draconian and dumb gun control laws.

Admittedly, there is competition from California, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.

They also have some real dandies when it comes to ineffective and stupid laws involving firearms.

We have lived with the Sullivan Law which calls for the licensing of handgun owners and the registration of all handguns. I have spoken to several cops, district attorneys, lawyers and politicians and asked them how many gun crimes have been solved because the gun was registered. I have yet to hear a positive number from any of them.

Of course registration works. It worked wonderfully well for Adolph Hitler and several other dictators. It certainly destroyed any meaningful attempts to rescue the citizens from oppression. In fact, it is difficult to find any republic or democracy that was taken over by a dictator without first imposing gun control and registration. It sure made it convenient for those in power to disarm the citizens.

The term “gun control” can be misleading because it isn’t about controlling guns. It is about controlling people.

The laws affect only honest citizens because criminals don’t obey laws—that’s why they are called criminals. The ironic part of the registration law is that criminals can’t be charged with not registering a firearm. The Supreme Court said it would be a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights.

But, back to the dumb gun laws in New York. It takes a few months to a year in the Empire State to get a pistol permit. In Pennsylvania it takes less than an hour and this includes permits for non-residents. The difference in crime statistics involving guns between the states is insignificant.

The real objective of the anti-gun politicians is to make guns illegal for all but their favored few. That was the objective of Tim Sullivan who got the law passed. That’s why an upstate cop can’t legally carry a handgun in the Big Apple unless he is on duty and has the OK from the Police Commissioner.

That is a real crime stopper!

The big push for this legislative session is called microstamping which is an unproven technology that is supposed to create an imprint on fired cartridge cases. It has yet to be shown to work. It is a method (politicians say) to put a mark on the case that will link it to the gun that fired it.

There are a couple of big problems with this bill. First, it is obvious that the sponsors want to keep manufacturers from selling semi-automatic handguns in New York. We have not, so far, found any major manufacturer that is willing to invest on this technology for the whims of politicians in one state.

The second problem is that most guns used in crimes are stolen or bought off the street. An offshoot (pardon the pun) is that a criminal could pick up fired brass at a gun club range, commit a crime and use a brass catcher to avoid leaving his cases at a crime scene and drop the other cases. Wouldn’t that be confusing?

Most significant is the fact that a gun with the imprinting ability can be easily altered to defeat the microstamping. A file, power drill with a hone and some valve grinding compound could remove the identifying marking images. That would make the system totally ineffective.

Several years ago Governor Pataki instituted the CoBIS system which requires any semi-auto handgun sold at a gun store to provide a fired case and give to the State Police for their records. It is difficult to get an exact figure of the cost, but a good guess is around $20 million. In the decade it has been in existence, NOT ONE CRIME case has been solved with this program.

We had a report that one third of the cases sent to Albany for the data base had not yet been entered. What a waste of taxpayer’s money!

This would be a good time to contact legislators and the governor to tell them to forget about this microstamping bill and use their time doing something useful.

Florida Carry

Florida - -(Ammoland.com)- SB 432 is on the agenda of FL Senate Committee on Health Regulation on Tuesday, March 22. Florida Carry, Inc. urgently requests that you send e-mails via the links provided to each of the committees members in support of Senate Bill 432.

SB 432 provides that inquiries by physicians or other medical personnel concerning the ownership of a firearm by a patient or the family of a patient or the presence of a firearm in a private home or other domicile of a patient or the family of a patient violates the privacy of the patient or the patient’s family members, respectively.

The bill also prohibits entry of certain information concerning firearms into medical records or disclosure of such information by specified individuals, provides noncriminal penalties, and provides for prosecution of violations, etc.
Primarily, but not limited to the American Academy of Pediatrics, had made the banning of handguns a priority under the guise of a children’s safety issue.

Not satisfied with merely providing household safety information, doctors have been specifically asking both parents AND CHILDREN about guns in the home, and have denied service to those who refuse to answer.

A woman in Ocala, FL refused to answer her pediatrician’s inquiries during her daughters routing physical checkup and as a result was given 30 days to find a replacement pediatrician for her three children. Not everyone has the money, time, or transportation to find another pediatrician. Firearm ownership information has been entered on patient records, and has been released to unauthorized third parties. A mother in Uxbridge, MA objected to her child being asked about “daddy’s guns”, and stopped the doctor’s intrusive questioning. Days later, she found out from a friend on the police force that the doctor had filed a report about the family’s lawful ownership of guns.

In fact, one of our own members was subjected to this intrusion. He posted his experience here: www.floridacarry.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=71#p913

There are exceptions in the bill for legitimate inquiries with regards to mental health professionals and emergency situations, and there is nothing that prevents a doctor from providing information on any topic including firearms safety.

The bill merely prevents doctors from asking about firearms and then denying service based on an answer not to their liking.

E-mail Helper (feel free to cut, copy, paste, and edit to suit)
—————————————————————————-
TO:
garcia.rene.web@flsenate.gov; sobel.eleanor.web@flsenate.gov; altman.thad.web@flsenate.gov; bennett.mike.web@flsenate.gov; portilla.miguel.web@flsenate.gov; fasano.mike.web@flsenate.gov; gaetz.don.web@flsenate.gov; gardiner.andy.web@flsenate.gov; jones.dennis.web@flsenate.gov; latvala.jack.web@flsenate.gov; norman.jim.web@flsenate.gov; ring.jeremy.web@flsenate.gov

SUBJECT:

Support SB 432 – Stop doctors from interrogating children

Dear Senator,

Primarily, but not limited to the American Academy of Pediatrics, had made the banning of handguns a priority under the guise of a children’s safety issue. Not satisfied with merely providing household safety information, doctors have been specifically asking both parents AND CHILDREN about guns in the home, and have denied service to those who refuse to answer. A woman in Ocala, FL refused to answer her pediatrician’s inquiries during her daughters routing physical checkup and as a result was given 30 days to find a replacement pediatrician for her three children. Not everyone has the money, time, or transportation to find another pediatrician. Firearm ownership information has been entered on patient records, and has been released to unauthorized third parties. A mother in Uxbridge, MA objected to her child being asked about “daddy’s guns”, and stopped the doctor’s intrusive questioning. Days later, she found out from a friend on the local police force that the doctor had filed a report about the family’s lawful ownership of guns.

There are exceptions in the bill for legitimate inquiries with regards to mental health professionals and emergency situations, and there is nothing that prevents a doctor from providing information on any topic including firearms safety. The bill merely prevents doctors from asking about firearms and then denying service based on an answer not to their liking.
Please vote in favor of SB 432.

Respectfully yours,
~your name~

About:
Florida Carry is a non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots organization dedicated to advancing the fundamental civil right of all Floridians to keep and bear arms for self defense as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I Section 8 of the Florida Constitution. Florida Carry, Inc. was organized by a group of Florida gun rights activists in order to better coordinate activities, effectively lobby the state legislature, and to provide a legal entity capable of filing suit to demand compliance with state and federal law. Florida Carry stands only to represent our members and the over 6 million gun owners of Florida. We are not beholden to any national organization’s agenda that may compromise that mission.
Florida Carry works tirelessly toward repealing and striking down ill-conceived gun control laws that have been proven to provide safe havens to criminals and be deadly to law abiding citizens.

Australian anti-gunner Simon Chapman laid out his ghoulish recipe for advancing civilian disarmament in his 1998 hate book, over our dead bodies. It worked in Australia. Are we going to let his recipe work in America?

Dillon Precision

Scottsdale, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- Gun-prohibitionists know that the shock value of firearm-related mass murders can be used to their advantage.

According to anti-gun Australian public health professor, Simon Chapman, sensational mass murders committed with firearms, like the recent Arizona shootings, can be “critically important to possible advances in gun control policies….”

Chapman continued: “There is a great deal of advocacy that must take place before, immediately after and then well into the critical post-massacre period to ensure that community and political grief, outrage and anger translate into policy and law reform.”

In his 1998 book, Over Our Dead Bodies, Chapman laid out his ghoulish recipe for advancing civilian disarmament. And he was brazen enough to admit that we American gun-owners might view these exploitative attempts to capitalize on such events as a “vulture-like attitude to human tragedy, with advocates waiting patiently for…gun massacres so they might climb aboard community outrage and opportunistically capitalise on the misfortune of others.”

He was right; we believe that profiting from human tragedy by spreading fear and disinformation is evil and reprehensible.

Our Founding Fathers did not have to resort to advocacy to create a norm conducive to freedom: a gun culture. When they wrote the blueprint for our republic, they used their command of history, truth, and common sense. But in recent decades, lies were told, disguised as science, greatly damaging that culture.

Medical charlatans like Arthur Kellermann, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, produced a slew of junk-science studies which “proved” that people who live in households containing firearms were at great risk. Their friends and neighbors were in danger, as well. While these “scientific” papers were eventually refuted, the lies still stick, demonizing and marginalizing peaceable gun-owners.

Predictably, the Arizona massacre is deliberately being used to fuel the fear of firearms that has been built up over the years. That fear has shaped the state of our norm today — our norm now includes the raw fear and emotion dredged up by the Chapmans and the Kellermanns of the world.

Fear and suspicion is facilitated by the media, which keeps up a drumbeat of publicity. The Scientific American asked “How many massacres will it take for gutless politicians to stand up to gun nuts?” The NY Times asked “How Many Deaths Are Enough?” And the Kansas City Star demanded “Protect kids from gun owners and guns.”

We’ve let our American norm become so damaged that lies and uncommon sense prevail in any discussion after a mass public shooting. But we can we bring the focus back to the overwhelming benefits of our original American norm.

Prohibitionists will always have pictures of corpses and maimed victims to point to, when the discussion turns to the costs of private firearm possession. The recent statement by Dr. Gary Kleck, based on his and others’ research – “making guns unavailable for self-defense can…cost lives…” – is almost impossible to use to counter the images.

But just as repetition of photos of corpses can create fear, familiarity with weapons can create respect. One of the first steps that must be taken with the firearm-ignorant is to introduce them to firearms, up close, and often. People would begin to understand that a gun is a controllable tool.

In order to do that, we need to be comfortable with the knowledge that our philosophy can stand firm without lies! Many gun-owners have been infected by the lie that a gun in the home presents a danger to that family — they suspect, but they cannot articulate, that a gun in the home creates a safer environment for their families and neighbors. These people are ashamed to discuss the gun in their closet, and that needs to change.

We all know knowledgeable gun-owners who ask why anyone needs high-capacity magazines, or “assault-weapons.” We’ve even heard them denigrate open-carry advocates. Are these gun-owners willing to slide down the slippery slope of compromise simply in order to appear “reasonable”? Or are they, too, ashamed of our norm?

In 1989, Bill Ruger wrote to all members of Congress stating that we should “prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines.” This was recently repeated by Bob Brown, a former Montana secretary of state and state Senate president, in an article from the Great Falls (Montana) Tribune , Proud NRA member thinks there should be limits on guns.” It’s easy to understand why this only provides fodder to the media — how many rounds are just right? The global prohibitionists have stated that they would find it acceptable for us to possess a single-shot sporting weapon on the road to their gun-free society.

We have also recently heard other knowledgeable gun-owners parrot the media to express hysteria about the open-carry movement — our original norm. The media are referring to open-carry as foolish and dangerous, “a loophole that needs to be closed,” almost as if they know that constant visions of peaceable Americans carrying firearms is destructive to the prohibitionist agenda.

Are we embarrassed by proclaiming our sovereignty?

A tough job lies ahead of us. We need to conquer our weaknesses, even as we educate the public. The Founding Fathers understood one fact many have forgotten: a representative republic can only survive with an educated populace.

It is in the public’s best interest to be educated, not driven by raw emotion. We are the only ones able to do so.

About:
Dillon Precision is the only choice for all your reloading needs. Consider the quality and innovation behind each product, the lifetime “No BS” warranty, and the unparalleled reputation for post-sale service, and there simply isn’t any other option. Your only decision is which machine to buy. Dillon offers a machine for every budget or reloading need. From the “pistol only” Square Deal, the “workhorse” RL 550B, the fully progressive XL 650, to the commercial grade Super 1050. They even offer a progressive shotshell loader that blows away everything on the market. Visit: www.dillonprecision.com

Texas State Rifle Association

Houston, Tx --(Ammoland.com)- SB 321 by Senator Glenn Hegar, Jr.(R-Katy) relates to protecting the jobs of hard-working Texans and the legal possession of a firearm in their private locked vehicles when parked on their employer’s parking lot.

SB 321 Information and Co-Authors

Starting Monday, SB 321 is Eligible on the Senate floor to be voted out of the Senate.

Beginning Monday, March 14th, SB 321 will be eligible for a vote on the floor of the Texas Senate. All Senator will participate in this vote.

It’s time to call your state senator and urge he or she to stand with Senator Hegar and fight off business and industry amendments aimed at carving-out groups of employees and restricting the legal contents of their personal vehicles.

Tell your state senator there is no OSHA excuse, no Homeland Security excuse, and employer notification is not an acceptable addition to Senator Hegar’s bill. You won’t settle for an alternative “Guns Only” parking lot, or a stripped down version for Concealed Handgun Licensees only. Every Austin lobbyist is hard at work for their employer trying to turn SB 321 into a meal-ticket for them and leave you disarmed on your trip to and from your job. It’s time to join other states and pass SB 321.

Check out the Co-Author’s List
Check out the co-author’s list in the link above but don’t take the list for granted, urge the co-authors to stand strong too. It’s time to be tough and get this job done.

Texas employees need the option of self-defense on their trip to and from the workplace. See the link below for all senate members contact info.

Senate Email and Contact Information

Remember the Senate floor-vote could come anytime from Monday, March 14th, on.

The time to act is now.

Protect yourself and Protect your family. Send that email and make that call.

Don’t forget to join, renew, or upgrade your TSRA membership at www.tsra.com or call 512-615-4200. We’re only as strong as our membership.

Act now and Keep the Faith,

Alice Tripp
Texas State Rifle Association

About:
The Mission of the Texas State Rifle Association is to protect and defend the inalienable rights of the individual Texan to acquire, possess, transport, carry, transfer ownership and enjoy the right to lawful use of firearms for self preservation, for the defense of family and property and the common defense of the Republic and the individual liberties of the people. Visit: www.TSRA.com

Louisiana Bill Would Make You Show Your Guns Before Buying Ammo - Nuns and Ammo

U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance

Louisiana --(Ammoland.com)- A bill in Louisiana would require sportsmen to show the serial number on their firearms before purchasing ammunition.

House Bill 8, introduced by Representative Juan LaFonta (D- New Orleans), requires any person selling ammunition to verify that the serial number of the gun for which the ammunition will be used has not been altered or destroyed. Only antique and war relic firearms would be exempt from this new requirement if they are rendered inoperable or if ammunition for these firearms is not available in the U.S. and not otherwise readily available through other means.

Essentially, this bill would require sportsmen to take their guns with them to their local gun shop anytime they needed to purchase ammunition. While there, the sales clerk would be required to check the gun’s serial number to make sure it wasn’t altered in any way before selling any ammunition. Sportsmen would have to go through this process every time they want to purchase ammunition. Those wanting to buy ammunition for more than one gun at a time would have to carry every with them to the store to be examined by the sales clerk.

“This bill is another example of legislation aimed at eliminating gun ownership by creating unnecessary, burdensome restrictions on a person’s ability to use a firearm,” said Jeremy Rine, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance associate director of state services. “HB 8 is nothing more than a solution in search of a problem.”

Take Action! Louisiana sportsmen should contact their state representatives and ask them to oppose House Bill 8. Tell them the bill is impracticable, unnecessary, and only serves to restrict law abiding gun owners. To find your state representative’s contact information, please visit the USSA Legislative Action Center at www.ussportsmen.org/LAC.

About:
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen’s organizations that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. Visit www.ussportsmen.org.

Fairfax, VA --(Ammoland.com)- NRA-News is a valued partner that continues to cover breaking gun rights news with a new and improved short video format in the “NRA News Minute” videos.

Cam Edwards talks to NRA Illinois lobbyist Todd Vandermyde about the Illinois Attorney Generals order that the state should release all the personal information of all of Illinois FOID Card holders.

To view the current firearms or gun rights news video, please click above:

Read More on these topics:

• Attention Illinois Gun Owners – Annual Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day
• Illinois Attorney General Wants To Expose Your Firearms ID Card
• Illinois FOID Renewal: Take Action on your Late FOID

About:
Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military. Visit: www.nra.org