FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- As magazines containing ballots for the 2012 NRA Board of Directors Election have been arriving in people’s mail boxes over the past week (if you got a ballot, you’re eligible to vote if you didn’t you aren’t).

I have been receiving requests for guidance as to which candidates I feel are worth supporting.

This year I am only endorsing one candidate, Maria Heil, and asking voting members of NRA to cast ballots with only Mrs. Heil’s name marked. While I do not know Mrs. Heil personally, she comes highly recommended by friends whose opinions I deeply respect. I think Mrs. Heil would be a diligent worker for our rights as gun owners and as NRA members within the Board of Directors. I believe she would bring some much-needed new energy to the board.

While there are several incumbent directors up this cycle who I think have done a good job of serving the members, I am disinclined to offer endorsements. I believe all of those good directors will easily win reelection without my help, or yours, and every vote cast for someone else dilutes any vote cast for Maria Heil. This technique is called “Bullet Voting” – voting for only one or a few candidates rather than an entire slate.

The 25 candidates with the highest number of votes win seats. Since there are only 31 candidates running, attempting to vote for a full slate invariably boosts the chances of another candidate bumping your favorite out of a seat. Just one vote difference can cost a seat.

There are 76 seats on the NRA Board of Directors. Each year 25 seats are up for election to a 3-year term and one seat is filled for a 1-year term by a vote of members present at the Annual Meeting. There also might be one or two “out of cycle” seats that need to be filled due to a resignation or death, but there are none of those this year so there are only 25 seats up for election. As usual, most of those seats will be filled by reelected incumbents, but this year there are a handful of Directors who either decided not to run again or who have fallen out of favor with Wayne and company and were snubbed by the Nominating Committee.

Either way, this creates an opportunity for a petition only candidate like Maria Heil to actually win a seat. The odds are still long, but not as bad as usual when 24 of the 25 seats are almost certain to go to incumbents.

It is an embarrassment that the greatest political action organization in the country generally gets participation from only about 7% of their members eligible to vote, but that’s the case. While that is a sad testimony to how seriously flawed the NRA election process is (and NRA’s unwillingness to address the problems) it also represents an opportunity.

In years past, my father and other dedicated NRA members have been able to shift the makeup of the NRA Board by running a short slate of alternate candidates and getting some of the 83% who normally don’t vote at all to Bullet Vote for that slate. Control over the NRA publications by Wayne and company, and their willingness to play dirty pool, made winning those seats almost impossible, but things are changing. The power of the internet could overcome the iron grip of the NRA-created millionaires who control the organization, but it would require cooperation and coordination among committed rights activists. Most importantly, a group of qualified, willing, reform candidates must be found and promoted. Those interested in putting together such an effort for 2013 and beyond are invited to contact me about it.

Until such a broad-based effort can be mounted, the best we can hope for is to try and keep good directors serving and get an occasional independent voice like Maria Heil inserted into the mix.

Jeff Knox Director, The Firearms Coalition Founder, GunVoter.org NRA Endowment Member.

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

Tripping over NYC’s Stupid Gun Laws

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- The closing days of 2011 brought a rash of collisions between otherwise upstanding citizens and New York City’s infamous gun laws.

On December 16 Mark Meckler, a prominent California Tea Party leader, was arrested at LaGuardia Airport as he attempted to check luggage containing his unloaded, cased, handgun in accordance with TSA, FAA, and Delta Airline rules.

Then on December 22, fourth-year medical student Meredith Graves was arrested at the 9/11 memorial when she asked a security guard where she could check her pistol in an attempt to comply with a “No Guns” sign. That case echoed a September case in which Indiana jeweler, Ryan Jerome, also tried to comply with a “No Guns” sign at the Empire State Building by asking a guard to hold his gun.

These are just the latest examples in a long stream of incidents that serve to demonstrate how gun laws snare the law abiding. Each case is unique, but virtually every case of an otherwise law-abiding citizens running afoul of draconian gun laws – in New York or elsewhere – falls into one of the following broad categories:

Ignorance:

Both Meredith Graves and Ryan Jerome thought they were complying with the law when they attempted to surrender their sidearms for safekeeping. They saw the signs and tried to obey. Unfortunately they didn’t see any “No Guns” signs when they crossed into New York. They should have known better.

Ignorance is a dangerous thing. There are several web sites which feature interactive gun law maps. For more detailed information, I recommend GunLaws.com, where my friend Alan Korwin offers the most comprehensive collection of books about owning, carrying, and using guns at home or away, anywhere in the country.

Forgetfulness:

For many of us, a gun is a normal part of our kit, but we can’t aford to forget it’s there. When you cross a state line that “just in case” gun can be a serious problem if it comes to the attention of the local police. The cases of Stephen Grant and Jonathan Ryan fall into this category. Mr. Grant remembered his gun too late and locked it in his NYC hotel safe – then forgot to take it with him when he went home. In the end he took the more prudent way out by pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge and paying a fine. It cost him much more than the fine, but it didn’t cost him years in prison and permanent loss of his gun rights as it could have. Mr. Ryan, a Florida landscaper, had his gun discovered in his glovebox after a routine traffic stop. He gambled and stared down the potential felony conviction with its mandatory minimum sentence of 3.5 years. The jury which decided his fate apparently knew its rights and responsibilities, and voted to acquit. The Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA.org) has publicized the Ryan case because it is a textbook example of what juries should do with bad laws.

Odds-Playing:

There are times when it might seem prudent to adhere to the old adage that it’s better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. When my father was directly threatened by a member of the Manson family, Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, in the 1970s, he weighed the odds and started carrying illegally. Arizona had no provision for concealed carry then, but Dad figured that the threat posed by a proven killer and her cohorts outweighed that of a misdemeanor charge in a comparatively gun-friendly state. The full story appears in Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War, which is available at NealKnox.com.

In other places, such as NYC, carrying illegally is a felony with a mandatory 3.5 year sentence. That shifts the odds significantly. A NYC jury concluded that Bernhard Goetz’ use of deadly force was justified, but convicted him for having the gun. Goetz was later sued by one of his “victims” (as the NYC press called them) and ordered to pay $43 million dollars.

Passing Through:

Under the McClure-Volkmer Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) a gun owner can legally travel through a jurisdiction where the gun might be illegal, if the gun is unloaded in a locked case and lawfully possessed in the origin and in the destination. For Mark Meckler the crux was where he was coming from and where he stopped on his way. An overnight stop, or even a breif detour on the way to the airport, can negate the FOPA protections. Meckler cut a deal, pleading guilty to disorderly conduct, paid a fine and lost his Glock, rather than place his future in the hands of a NYC jury.

A decision to carry a gun includes a load of responsibilities. It must be understood that even a clearly justified defensive use of a firearm – which saves your life – can easily cost your home and life savings through legal fees and civil penalties. Deadly force is serious business. No one should take the decision lightly, and threat recognition needs to include recognizing the threat posed by state power – particularly in states like New York.

Copyright © 2012 Neal Knox Associates – The most trusted name in the rights movement.

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

Polish P64 Pistol

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- I wasn’t among the estimated 2 million or so people who found a gun under the tree this Christmas, not because I didn’t want one or because my wife doesn’t love me, but because of stupid gun laws and an aversion to spending extra money to satisfy those stupid gun laws.

I’m frugal by nature and that inclination has gotten more pronounced with the current economy and future uncertainties.

But this Christmas my friends at J&G Sales made me an offer I didn’t think I could refuse. They lowered the price on their P64 pistols to just $149.95!

The P64 is a Polish knock-off of the famed Walther PPK carried by James Bond, but with a little more power. I just had to have one and my wife agreed so it was settled. That’s when the stupid gun laws kicked in.

In order to take advantage of the great deal from my friends in Prescott, I had to either drive up there or call and have the gun shipped to a dealer closer to my home in the Phoenix area. Driving up to Prescott takes about 2 and a half hours each way and would burn close to $50 worth of gas. Having the gun shipped down to a local dealer would add a $22 shipping charge plus a $35 transfer fee from my local dealer. Either way I would have to fill out paperwork and get approved through the NICS “instant” background check system. My sister, who lives in Prescott, could have gone down to J&G and picked up the gun for me except that’s illegal. If she were buying the gun for me as a gift, that would be OK, but if she were to buy it on my behalf or with the intention of selling it to me, that would be considered a “straw purchase” and she could face 5 years and $50,000 in penalties.

There was simply no way that I was going to be able to buy that gun without incurring $50 to $75 in additional costs. While that’s not a whole lot of money, it is more than a third of the price of the gun itself and it put the total cost over what I was willing to pay. In the end, I set the money aside in hopes that I’ll be able to cut a deal the next time I’m up in Prescott, or find some other bargain here locally.

The really frustrating thing about this story is knowing that the laws which kept me from buying this gun don’t keep criminals from getting the guns they use.

There were some 16 million NICS checks conducted in 2011 at a direct cost of more than a Billion dollars. That Billion dollars comes out of your paycheck and the value received for it is highly questionable. There has never been a single study indicating that the background check system has reduced violent crime. Still, a NICS checks is required every time I buy a gun from a dealer. It doesn’t matter how many guns I already own or how many I have recently purchased. Each time I wish to add to my collection I am placed under suspicion and investigated anew.

Couldn’t those Billions have been used to fund proven, effective crime-fighting programs or to keep serious criminals behind bars longer?

Gun laws – no matter how “common sense” they seem to be – don’t work because they simply don’t apply to criminals. Criminals get their guns through criminal means – by stealing them or getting them through straw purchasers. They find ways around the laws which are enforced against the rest of us. Certainly I agree that we should make an effort to keep guns away from criminals and crazy people, but at what cost and to what effect? Does it make sense to bind the hands of everyone in the vain hope of binding the hands of the criminals and crazies? Doesn’t it make more sense to literally bind – incarcerate – those who are too dangerous to be trusted with guns? If a person is known to be too dangerous to be trusted with a gun, what’s he doing driving down my street, hanging out at the grocery where my wife shops, or sitting in the park where my grandson plays? And why is the government messing up my Christmas, spending my money, and often disarming me in the name of protecting me from this guy that shouldn’t be on the streets in the first place?

Gun Control: Bah humbug! Happy New Year.

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

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- With less than 11 months until Americans go to the polls to elect the next President, and early Primaries and Caucuses underway, the prospects for “Hope and Change” are not looking promising.

Certainly plenty of promises are being made, but those promises, and the politicians making them, are long on brag and woefully short on substance or credibility.

While I represent a single-issue organization and use the right to arms as a primary litmus test of any politician’s qualifications, I also look at broader issues beginning with understanding and support for the rest of the Constitution, understanding of liberty-based economics, and their ability to effectively express their understanding and support of these things in such a way as to engender confidence and garner support from the voting public. Mr. Obama has proven that his qualifications in that regard are limited to saying things that elicit support from certain segments of the population (most notably mass media), but virtually all of his policy positions and personal values are in conflict with my own beliefs and the vision of our founding fathers. Unfortunately, the choices on the Republican side fall seriously short as well.

My brother and close collaborator, Chris Knox, and I have been hashing through the candidates, their philosophies and histories, and likely election scenarios for months now in hopes of finding a candidate to whom we can, in good conscience, offer our endorsement. There isn’t one. Every candidate we have examined has glaring flaws in their records or beliefs which we simply cannot endorse.

It was probably Mark Twain or Will Rogers who observed that the office of President is too important to ever give to someone who actually wants the job. The truth of that sentiment can be readily recognized when you look at the candidates and evaluate their motives for running. Seeking the office requires advanced narcissism or an almost messianic level of commitment to a philosophy or agenda – or both. A review of the current crop of candidates reveals a lot of narcissism and very little commitment to ideals. There is much more wanting to be as opposed to wanting to do.

Barack Obama is the personification of an agenda-driven narcissist. In his case the narcissism is dominant and the agenda is in direct opposition to the philosophy of the founders. Anyone who cares about the Second Amendment and the Constitution at all must reject him and all he stands for. While some gun owners and conservatives, frustrated by the ‘bigger government – less freedom’ activities of the Bush administration, cast a hopeful, and perhaps excusable, vote for Obama in 2008, Obama’s performance over the past 3 years has proven beyond all doubt that those hopeful votes were a tragic mistake, and that only political reality in Congress has kept him from completely gutting the Second Amendment and more of the Constitution.

Among the Republican candidates we see plenty of narcissism with very little principled commitment to constitutional ideals. Gingrich, Romney, and Perry, while they display some differences on policy matters, are, above all, political animals running to be President and have demonstrated a willingness to shift their policies and agenda as needed to advance their political ambitions. Bachman and Santorum likewise show strong narcissistic aspirations, but with a bit more consistency regarding “social conservative” issues. Their dedication to those issues however, suggest a willingness to place the Constitution behind their own religious and social preferences – acceptable on a personal level, but not in an official capacity.

Of all of the candidates, the only one who could be characterized as being agenda-driven for restoration of the Founders’ Constitutional principles, and with personal ambition being a secondary, or even tertiary issue, is Ron Paul. Paul has a long and consistent record of unwavering support for, and defense of, the Second Amendment and the Constitution. The problem with Paul however, is that his agenda is perceived as too aggressive and there is significant doubt as to his ability to be able to put all of the pieces together to make it work. A president has only limited power and even if Paul exercised that power to its utmost, there is much to his agenda that would require support from the Congress – support that he simply would not get. As President, Paul would face constant resistance and undermining from not only Democrats, but from Republicans as well, along with opposition from the media and, perhaps most significantly, federal bureaucrats. Another challenge for Paul would be finding qualified people to serve in his cabinet who agree with his agenda and have the knowledge and experience necessary to be effective.

The thought of an administration full of libertarian college professors and students with no government experience does not inspire confidence.

In the end, we find that all of the candidates are, in fact, human, possessing all of the foibles and frailties of the rest of us. What history has shown us is that presidential success or failure is extremely unpredictable. Much depends on the people with whom a president surrounds himself, who he listens to, and what external events he is faced with. Presidents either rise to the challenges of the office or they don’t. The only way to find out is to put them in the position and see what happens.

For those of us with specific agendas of our own, this means that the best we can do or hope for is to elicit promises and assurances from the candidates and then do our best to hold them to those commitments.

In 2012, one thing we know for sure is that our nation is at a tipping point and that another four years of Barack Obama and his cronies will be far worse than anything we could expect from any of the Republican challengers. While Chris and I have some preferences among the pack, we are not impressed with any of them enough to offer an endorsement in the Primaries. We will continue to push all of the candidates to make specific promises regarding the Second Amendment, the Constitution, and the appointment of judges and justices who have so much impact on those, and when a nominee is finally determined, we will do our best to get them elected.

In this election, more than any we have ever seen, we are confident that the devil we know is far worse than the devil we don’t know.

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

Congress Packs Firearms Riders in Minibus

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- Rather than pass a large, all-encompassing omnibus appropriations bill for the new fiscal year – which began on October 1 – Congress narrowed the scope of their first funding bill to cover only certain essential services and agencies in what they dubbed a “minibus” appropriations bill.

Even so, the measure, which was finally passed in mid November and signed by the President on November 18, was massive and complex.

Along with funding government agencies and specific programs, the Congress included numerous limitations on how the money can and cannot be spent, including over a dozen riders pertaining to firearms issues.

Most were directly related to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), while others were aimed at the Justice Department and other agencies which deal with firearms law enforcement, record keeping, import, and export, etc. Such instructions, known as riders, are nothing new, in fact, most of the ATF provisions have been included in appropriations bills for years, some for decades.

But this year’s unique “minibus” has some new tricks.

A permanent prohibition against the establishment of any sort of federal registration system of firearms and firearm owners, which has been included in appropriations bills since 1979, is among the more significant features of this bill. That provision was originally promulgated under the guidance of my father, Neal Knox, when he was Executive Director of NRA-ILA, the NRA’s lobbying division, and has been included in appropriations bill each year since. Dad would be pleased to see this protection finally made permanent.

Other provisions that attained permanent status in this bill include a prohibition against the computerization of records from out-of-business firearms dealers, a requirement that any identifying information obtained through the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) be destroyed within 24-hours of a transfer being approved, and restrictions on the release of firearms trace data.

An important new provision in this appropriation forbids the government from blocking the importation of shotguns based on a determination that they are not “suitable for sporting purposes,” if those shotguns were deemed suitable for importation in 2011. This was in response to last year’s “study” from the ATF suggesting that they were moving to use the “sporting purpose” clause of the Gun Control Act (GCA) to block importation of a variety of tactical-style shotguns which have been gaining popularity for home defense and action-shooting competition. Prices for these shotguns skyrocketed in the wake of the ATF “study” from the $300 – $400 range to the $1200 – $1300 range. The fact that this importability assurance is not permanent, requiring reauthorization every year, means that these shotguns should be more readily available, but their prices are likely to remain inflated based on fears of future import bans.

However, not all of the firearms-related riders in this minibus are gun-friendly. There is a provision, which has been included in appropriations since 1992, to prohibit the expenditure of any money on processing requests for restoration of firearms rights. This provision is particularly onerous since Congress specifically made provisions for such restoration of rights for people ATF determines are not a threat to society. The repeated inclusion of this prohibition points up the “sausage-making” process of Congress as various politicians play give-and-take with our rights.

A particularly unusual rider forbids the transfer of duties and responsibilities from ATF to any other federal agency. The prime motivator of this restriction is fear that the administration could shift certain responsibilities from ATF to some other entity and thereby side-step restrictions that specifically name ATF. There is also concern that shifting responsibility for firearms law enforcement to the U.S. Marshals or the FBI could make it more difficult to observe and influence those activities. With all of the criticism rights groups level at ATF, most recognize that the problems with ATF are primarily the fault of poorly written laws, not necessarily flaws within the agency or its personnel.

Other provisions protect definitions and importability of “Curios and Relics” as regulators try to resist including more modern-style guns that cross the 50-year eligibility mark for that classification. Again though, the fact that these protections come in the form of annual funding restrictions means that they can’t truly stabilize markets, prices, and procedures.

In the end, the firearms riders in the minibus represent a net gain for gun owners, but the whole process highlights serious flaws in current laws and regulations as well as the messiness of our legislative process. Wading through the massive appropriations bill and its many riders also offers a glimpse at just how pervasive and expensive federal government has become.

Clearly the protections and limitations included in the US Constitution are of little concern to those writing our laws and spending our money.

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

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- This important legislation has been languishing in both houses of Congress for the past several years in spite of bi-partisan efforts to get it moving.

The Senate version of the bill, sponsored by Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), was passed out of the Judiciary Committee in 2009 and placed on the Senate Calendar under General Orders where it remained awaiting action from self-avowed Second Amendment supporter, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

Reid allowed the bill to die with the close of the 111th Congress and it was not reintroduced in the Senate in the 112th Congress.

Now that a version of the legislation has passed out of the House, the pressure needs to be on for Senators to sign off on it and send it to the President.

Representative Denny Rehberg (R-MT) successfully amended the language from his bill, H.R.1898, to a broader veterans benefits bill, H.R.2349, which then passed the House on Tuesday, October 11.

The broader bill now goes to the Senate for consideration where shenanigans could strip out or seriously undermine the impact of the Rehberg language.

Contact your Senator – especially Democrats who have gotten elected by claiming to support the Second Amendment - and urge them to vote for passage of H.R.2349 with the Veterans’ Second Amendment Protection language intact.

The Veterans’ Second Amendment Protection Act was introduced in response to a Veterans Administration policy of submitting names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion in the NICS firearms purchaser background check database. The VA has been submitting the names of veterans who have a fiduciary appointed to manage their financial affairs as “mental defectives” who are then permanently prohibited from possessing or having access to firearms and/or ammunition. It is not uncommon for a veteran with minor memory issues or problems such as compulsive buying or gambling to have themselves declared mentally incompetent to manage their own affairs and turn over control of their financial affairs to a spouse or relative to manage for them. Even if such an arrangement and diagnoses is temporary – such as in the case of a severely wounded veteran undergoing long-term rehabilitation or comatose patients – once the name is submitted to NICS, it is very difficult for them to ever regain right to arms.

The Veterans’ Second Amendment Protection Act specifies that only veterans who have been adjudicated to be a danger to themselves or others are to be submitted for inclusion in the NICS database. This simple adjustment could restore firearms rights to as many as 100,000 veterans who have had their names unreasonably submitted to NICS.
This important reform is long overdue and this is the closest we’ve ever come to getting it signed into law.

Your Immediate Action is Required!

Contact both of your senators AND Senate Majority Leader Reid.
Tell them that you want H.R.2349 passed with the Veterans’ Second Amendment Protection Act language retained intact. Do it Today and then do it again every few days until the bill is passed and signed by the President.

Also, please forward this Alert to every veteran and gun owner you know and re-post it on every veteran or firearms related forum, blog, and website you can find.

Our veterans deserve your support on this and the support of your senators.

For reference, here is a list of the 17 Republicans and 1 Democrat who cosponsored the Senate version of this bill in 2009:

Name [Party-ST] – Date Cosponsored

• Sen Burr, Richard [R-NC] – Prime Sponsor
• Sen Brownback, Sam [R-KS] – 9/29/2009
• Sen Coburn, Tom [R-OK] – 3/23/2009
• Sen Cochran, Thad [R-MS] – 3/23/2009
• Sen Crapo, Mike [R-ID] – 3/23/2009
• Sen DeMint, Jim [R-SC] – 3/23/2009
• Sen Ensign, John [R-NV] – 3/23/2009
• Sen Enzi, Michael B. [R-WY] – 3/23/2009
• Sen Graham, Lindsey [R-SC] – 3/23/2009
• Sen Grassley, Chuck [R-IA] – 3/23/2009
• Sen Inhofe, James M. [R-OK] – 3/23/2009
• Sen Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK] – 3/23/2009
• Sen Risch, James E. [R-ID] – 8/6/2009
• Sen Roberts, Pat [R-KS] – 3/23/2009
• Sen Sessions, Jeff [R-AL] – 5/10/2010
• Sen Thune, John [R-SD] – 3/23/2009
• Sen Vitter, David [R-LA] – 3/23/2009
• Sen Wicker, Roger F. [R-MS] – 3/23/2009
• Sen Webb, Jim [D-VA] – 3/23/2009

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- I wasn’t surprised to see the name David Vann in one of David Codrea’s always excellent Gun Rights Examiner columns.

Dave Vann has been a good friend and fellow freedom fighter for decades.

But then I read David Vann’s suggestions for responding to the threat of campus shootings and I knew there was something very wrong in the world. This Dave Vann was advocating for the banning of all handguns, because they’re “made to kill people.”

Obviously this was a different Dave Vann. This Dave Vann is not a retired police officer with an addiction to advanced firearms training and a deep abiding interest in, and knowledge of, firearms, criminology, US History, and the Constitution. This Dave Vann is a creative writing teacher in San Francisco who has written a somewhat sympathetic book about the 2008 Northern Illinois University murderer, and is so mistrustful of his fellow US citizens that he spends most of his time in New Zealand. (Someone might wish to educate Mr. Vann about the widespread gun ownership in that island nation.)

Dave Vann the retired police officer has a simple solution for mitigating the destruction caused by suicidal mass murderers: Stop disarming the potential victims so those who choose to can respond to such assaults with something more immediate and effective than a cell phone.

David Vann the creative writing teacher has a somewhat less simple, four-point solution for universities to “limit shootings,” which he admits really won’t work, but which should be implemented anyway because, he says, not applying his admittedly ineffective solutions is “insane.” What he suggests is that college’s, universities, high schools and middle schools must:

1. Group together to fight the NRA and push for gun control, including the elimination of all handguns, since handguns are made to kill people.
2. Require mental health background checks (apparently on all students, faculty, and anyone wishing to own whatever guns are still allowed, going back their entire lives, not just 5 or 10 years).
3. Flag anyone who has served in the military or been in the prison system. (Mr. Vann does not specify whether he is referring only to those who have been incarcerated or guards and prison service workers as well.)
4. Use metal detectors, more police at campus borders, etc.

Mr. Vann (the creative writing teacher) says that these measures will all help to guard against campus shootings, but that they are “expensive and almost entirely incapable of preventing a swift attack.” So he suggests that the “best that universities can do,” in his opinion, “is to invest in fighting the pro-gun lobby.”  (Read the full interview with him here.)

It is clear that this “intellectual” David Vann is missing a few important points that I’m confident would never be overlooked by the less erudite, retired cop, Dave Vann. For instance, Dave Vann the cop understands that it is illegal and immoral for state colleges and universities to use taxpayer dollars to lobby against the rights enumerated in the US Constitution. He also realizes that the “pro-gun lobby” is not some small group of political specialists sitting around in a smoky room phoning instructions to politicians and writing massive campaign checks from the bottomless pockets of their firearms industry masters. He knows that the “pro-gun lobby” is a coalition of regular Joe’s and Jane’s who care deeply about their rights and donate their time, money, and talents to protecting those rights. He understands that the power of the “powerful gun lobby” comes from the 80 to 90 million Americans who own guns and oppose useless, ineffective infringements on their rights. Dave Vann the retired cop and rights activist, co-founder of www.USRKBA.org and www.GunLeaders.com, knows that restricting the rights and invading the privacy of 300 million people for fear of what less than a dozen people might do, is the very definition of paranoia and irrationality.

Dave Vann the creative writing teacher’s paranoia and irrationality sees threats from military veterans and anyone subscribing to a libertarian political philosophy. Dave Vann the retired cop sees veterans and libertarians as fellow workers in the cause of freedom.

Perhaps both of these men can stand up as being the real David Vann, but only Dave Vann the retired cop and rights activist can stand up as the real American, the real patriot, and the real man.

Here’s what Dave Vann has to say about the matter:

Meeting Your Doppelganger – David Vann v David Vann 

by Dave Vann on Oct.12, 2011

A doppelganger is described as a paranormal double of a living person, typically representing evil or misfortune.  When Jeff Knox and David Codrea emailed me and informed me that David Vann had written an anti-gun book and was a professor at the University of San Francisco, I knew I had found mine.

One David Vann is on the right coast, a former law enforcement officer, RKBA supporter, Co-Founder of Gunleaders.com & USRKBA.org who believes in the absolute right of individuals, including military personnel, to defend themselves, the other, on the left coast, is a virulently anti-gun professor who writes about those who commit mass murder, teaches at a liberal college, doesn’t trust military personnel to own firearms and believes handguns should be totally banned because, he says, they are only used to kill.

What to do?  I’ll follow conventional and traditional wisdom and confront the beast. So, David Vann, meet David Vann.

I saw exactly what you propose.  I saw a handgun ban at work from 1976 forward in Washington, D.C.  I witnessed the body count rise, steadily, each and every year, as this social experiment continued to fail.  I cringed at the battered, bloody bodies of women who had been raped, robbed, beaten and murdered and had no way to defend themselves.  I heard stories of business owners who were so terrified of being robbed and killed that they were willing to break the law themselves and obtain firearms on the black market rather than risk being shot and killed by robbers, an all too frequent event when D.C. became known as the “Murder Capitol” of the Country.

Gun control advocates have an explanation to all this that is far too simplistic.  “Well, they keep selling guns elsewhere”.  Yes, they do, however, law abiding D.C. residents could not simply go somewhere else and buy a handgun and bring it back to the city, a fact you and others conveniently forget to mention.  Criminals, however, steal guns and laugh at all laws.

As for handguns being only used for killing, every law enforcement officer in this country should be sending you a message loud and clear that if that was the case the body count would be astronomical.  Police officers do not carry handguns to kill people Mr.Vann, they carry handguns to protect lives.  Occasionally it becomes necessary to use that handgun to save an innocent life.  Are you going to object to a police officer using a handgun to save your life from someone who is intent upon killing you?  If you are, please let the police know so that they can avoid responding to your address, putting their lives in jeopardy, when you really don’t want to be saved.

The courts have ruled that the police have no obligation to protect the individual (Warren v District of Columbia), therefore it falls upon the individual to act responsibly in that regard.  A handgun protects the innocent and saves lives every day.  Forty eight States now have licensing for concealed carry and the consistent drop in violent crime attests to the fact that criminals are well aware that it’s becoming dangerous for them to ply their trade, except of course in cities like Washington, D.C., Chicago and a few other holdouts.

Is there aberrant behavior in our society that goes undetected?  Of course, just as there are journalists and writers who present one-sided rants.  Should we require them to register their computers and undergo a mental exam to determine if they are fit to fill the papers and academia with all the garbage we are subjected to today?  It might be tempting but the First Amendment is protected by the Second so we all remain free to express our opinions no matter how far from the truth some of them may be.

You rail against the NRA yet fail to acknowledge that the NRA is the chief training organization for Police nationwide and has developed more educational programs for firearms safety than any other group in this Country.

As a doppelganger you truly are a malevolent entity that seems bent on destruction of our most cherished freedoms; freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I reject you and I cast you out.

Dave Vann – The real one

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

Guitars, Guns, and Federal Excesses

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- On August 24, 2011, federal agents of the Fish and Wildlife Service raided offices and production facilities of the Gibson Guitar company.

They sent workers home and confiscated several pallets of wood along with computer files and numerous guitars (amounting to about $2 million in lost production and property).

This was the second raid on Gibson in as many years over questions about some of the wood the legendary guitar makers use in their products. The timing of the latest raid is convenient for the government as they are currently trying to convince a federal judge to indefinitely delay a lawsuit from Gibson demanding the return of some half-million dollars worth of ebony wood seized by federal agents back in 2009. No charges have ever been filed against the company regarding that raid, but the government has continued to refuse to return the seized wood which they suspected might have been illegally harvested in Madagascar.

The object of the August 24 raid appears to have been wood imported from India. Gibson says that they have been extra careful to document all of the wood they import since the 2009 federal assault and that the particular wood in question was acquired from a supplier certified by the Forrest Stewardship Council, an environmental organization set up to protect endangered trees by identifying legally harvested wood and closing markets to illegally cut products. The particular wood in question was purchased and imported from India with an extensive paper-trail from the Indian government and the US Customs Service. According to Gibson, the Fish and Wildlife Service is claiming that the wood violates an Indian requirement that wood exported from the country must be processed to a certain degree by Indian craftsmen prior to export. Gibson says this requirement was either met or waived by the Indian government as demonstrated by India’s export authorizations. The Indian government did not sanction or participate in the August raid.

Gibson executives say they are being unjustly bullied by the feds.

The persecution of Gibson Guitars has instrument manufacturers and musicians around the country and around the world deeply concerned. The raids highlight threats posed by well-intentioned laws aimed at curtailing over-harvesting and destruction of certain trees as well as some animal products such as certain types of horn and ivory. When these laws and international agreements were enacted they focused mainly on furniture and art items, but now enforcement is broadening with musical instrument makers and people traveling internationally with instruments being required to provide proof that the ebony, cherry, and ivory used in the instruments’ construction came from legal sources. Even though an instrument might be over 100 years old, the lineage of an ivory bridge or a fingerboard of Brazillian Cherry is subject to question and confiscation if proof of the components’ sources can not be provided.

What this got to do with guns?
This threat also directly impacts gun owners as many fine firearms have exotic wood stocks with inlays and accents of ebony, ivory or other rare and potentially restricted materials.

The whole idiotic assault on Gibson Guitars is reminiscent of what firearms dealers, manufacturers, importers, and owners have been dealing with for decades. Firearms importers have had literal boatloads of products seized on the basis of some obscure paperwork complication and even when the issue is resolved, the seized guns might not be returned. Gun shops have been closed down and their entire inventories confiscated on the basis of customers using “Y” and “N” rather than “Yes” and “No” on purchase forms or abbreviating the name of a city rather than writing it out completely. When guns are returned, they are often damaged from improper storage and handling and there have even been cases where agents have lost parts of a dealers seized records and then come back and cited the dealers for not being able to produce the records the agents lost.

The problems stem from well intentioned, but poorly written laws and regulations. They are emotionally appealing when described in sound bites during congressional consideration, and they’re always supposed to accomplish some laudable goal, but soon federal enforcers realize that it’s easier – and more lucrative – to ignore the real objective of the laws (serious criminals) and go after technical violations by people who have no criminal intent and pose no threat to society or the environment.

The laws get interpreted and implemented in ways that make it virtually impossible for people to conduct their business or pursue their hobby without running afoul of some technicality or paperwork issue. With such a universal failure rate, government agencies are able to target virtually any business or individual for selective enforcement and even if they can’t put together a winning case, they can cause enough disruption and financial damage to effectively destroy productive lives and businesses.

Whether it’s guitar makers besieged by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, farmers under assault from the Environmental Protection Agency or the Army Corps of Engineers, or gun owners and dealers under attack from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, it all boils down to overreaching federal government. While the feds do have some legitimate jurisdiction in these matters, they are overstepping their rightful authority in all directions and it’s well past time for the citizens to rein them in.

If all of the disparate interests being victimized by these overreaching federal bureaucrats would join forces, we could put a stop to this nonsense once and for all.

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

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.

No Questions Asked Gun-Buy-Backs Are Illegal

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- For decades we’ve heard about gun turn-ins – “Gun Buy-Back” programs sponsored by churches, civic groups, and various other misinformed do-gooder organizations.

The very name – buy-back – implies that guns belong not to individuals, but to the government, or at least to the people who don’t like guns.

The programs have the stated purpose of “getting guns off the street,” which seems to give operators a pass from further scrutiny, even as they offer a tangible good such as a grocery store coupon or gift card in return for a gun, “no questions asked,” much like any other fencing operation.

Finally someone has forced the question: Are these programs legal?
Attorney and author of the New Jersey Gun Law Guide, Evan Nappen, not only asked the question, he is offering a $5000 bounty for anyone who can prove an affirmative answer.

Nappen is specifically asking about the legality of a church-sponsored program in the state of New Jersey.

As an expert on New Jersey gun laws Nappen says he can find no provision in the state’s maze-like gun statutes that permit churches and civic groups, or the people surrendering (actually selling) the guns, to by-pass the thicket of New Jersey state laws that require permits, background checks, and paperwork whenever a gun is transported or transferred.

Mr. Nappen also questions the “no questions asked” policy, and the immediate destruction of the guns, which might be stolen property, or could be evidence in serious crimes. Additional details of Nappen’s challenge can be seen on his web site, www.EvanNappen.com.

I don’t expect Evan will lose the $5,000 anytime soon. He knows New Jersey law and it is pretty clear that there are very specific requirements which are not being met in these “buy-back” programs.

Under New Jersey law, anyone wishing to surrender an illegally possessed firearm must first state their intention to do so in writing to their chief of police or the head of the State Police. The statement must include their identity. Also, while New Jersey does offer some immunity from prosecution to a person who turns in a gun in this manner, that immunity is limited to the crime of illegally possessing the gun, not to any other crimes that might involve the gun.

Further, it is a direct violation of NJ law for anyone other than a licensed dealer to purchase a firearm unless they have a special permit from the state. There is no provision for exceptions, exemptions, or special dispensations, and again, there is a requirement that paperwork be filled out which includes the name and identifying information of both the purchaser and the seller. Anonymous transactions are not legal in New Jersey. On top of all of that there is the issue of transporting the guns to the “buy-back” location. New Jersey has draconian laws regarding the transport of firearms and there is no exception for someone going to a “buy-back.”

The fact is that in New Jersey, like most other states, there simply is no provision for suspending gun control laws for the sake of anti-gun propaganda events.

Gun “buy-backs” are legally questionable even when they are conducted by municipalities or police departments. When they are conducted by private entities, there is no cover of law to be found. Not for the organization sponsoring the event, not for the people working the event, nor for the people bringing guns to the event to turn in. Just because law enforcement chooses to turn a blind eye to the infractions does not make them legal. Police may claim a need to use use discretion and common sense when they enforce the law – we’ve all seen stories of a kid’s lemonade stand shut down due to licensing or zoning issues, or when the Salvation Army is gigged for not paying minimum wage when they give a wino homeless person a few dollars for helping around the thrift store, but this goes beyond discretion. Wholesale disregard for laws that shouldn’t exist by the very people who demanded that they be passed in the first place goes beyond the realm of sense.

The New Jersey gun laws clearly infringe on the fundamental rights of citizens and are routinely used to ruin the lives of people who have no malicious intent or criminal agenda. Look up Brian Aitken for a stunning example. These are bad laws which do no good and cause great harm. They should be repealed, but until they are, they should not be ignored when it comes to the people who helped pass them.

Hollywood celebrities call for disarming the masses while they are protected by their armed bodyguards and their special dispensation carry permits. Legislators pass special exemptions and amnesty periods when they find one of their own snared in stupid gun laws. And well-meaning, peace-marching church folk call for stricter gun laws, but then expect to be able to openly defy those laws in the name of “getting guns off the street.”

It’s hypocritical, it’s wrong, and they shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it.

©Copyright 2010 Neal Knox Associates – The most trusted name in the rights movement.

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- It can be argued that the only personal property specifically protected by the US Constitution is firearms.

While the Fourth Amendment promises “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” and requires a sworn warrant “describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,” it does specifically allow for such seizure if the “i’s” are properly dotted and the “t’s” correctly crossed.

Similarly the Fifth Amendment guarantees against a person being “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” but again, it recognizes a process for such deprivation and taking.

The Second Amendment contains no such provisions for circumvention.

While I would not argue that the Second Amendment precludes society from ever restricting arms in any circumstance – such as to inmates in prison or briefly while police sort out the good guys from the bad guys at an incident – I do believe that it places firearms in a very special and protected place under law; a place where any deprivation of the right should receive special scrutiny and careful consideration. But our judicial system seems to take the exact opposite view. In any legal issue firearms are typically the first thing taken away and the last thing returned – if they are ever returned at all.

US Judges Display Little Respect For Second Amendment Rights

A couple of recent cases renewed my concern about the attitude that the courts routinely exhibit toward guns.

In Nevada last October Al DiCicco made the mistake of taking political speech a bit too far when he expressed his dislike for a local Family Court judge by backing his truck into one of the judge’s reelection campaign signs. A local police officer happened to see the vandalism and Al found himself under arrest for a gross misdemeanor. During the arrest a loaded lever-action rifle was discovered in DiCicco’s truck. That’s another misdemeanor. The police seized the rifle and a .32 caliber pistol which was legally carried.

After resolution of the citations the judge declared that she was not going to return DiCicco’s guns – even though Nevada law does not provide for forfeiture of the rifle under the circumstances and the pistol was not connected to any crime. Now DiCicco, who is disabled and lives on a small, fixed income, is left with the option of either allowing his guns to be illegally forfeited or trying to scrape together the funds to stage a challenge to the unlawful taking.

In a different incident that illustrates the same issue, Joe Winslow, a member of the Quartzsite, Arizona Town Council, has sworn out a protective order complaint against a local political activist. He claimed that he thought the activist was headed toward violence and requested that the judge ban the man from City Hall and prohibit him from possessing firearms or ammunition. The judge granted his request. (She subsequently vacated that decision after exposure in the Knox Report on WND.com and ensuing public outrage.)

Consider the ramifications of this court order. The court forbid a person from the immediate vicinity of a public servant and suspended the constituent’s constitutional rights – anywhere – indefinitely. He could go bird hunting in Argentina and be cited for violating the terms of the protective order. All based on an unsubstantiated suspicion.

These are but two among thousands of examples of courts displaying utter disdain for the Second Amendment and the individual right to arms. I personally have had to do battle with a judge when the .22 rifle my father gave me for my 10th birthday (a most treasured possession) was stolen and criminally misused. When the criminal proceedings ended and I expected my gun to be returned, the judge declared that the gun was to be forfeited as if it belonged to the criminal. Were it not for the assistance of a City Prosecutor I don’t think I would have been able to recover that precious family heirloom. And this happened at a time when I was a very prominent member of the business community and had just come within a few hundred votes of winning a seat in the state legislature. I seriously doubt that someone less well-connected could have gotten the gun back.

The primary mission of government is to ensure the blessings of liberty to the citizens. The primary mission of the courts is to uphold the rule of law toward that end. For the courts to dismiss core tenets of the law and disregard a fundamental, enumerated right as if it were a government-granted privilege is unacceptable and needs to be addressed. We elect these judges or elect the people who appoint them. It’s up to us to hold them accountable for their lack of respect for the Constitution.

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

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) has introduced a bill (HR-2613) to repeal the federal Gun Free School Zone Act.

While many in the general public and the gun prohibition community will balk and ask questions like, “What does anyone need with a gun at a school,” knowledgeable rights supporters are wondering why it has taken so long.

The Gun Free School Zone Act, or GFSZA for short, was originally passed by Congress back in 1990, but in 1995 the Supreme Court voided the law, ruling it (quite correctly) to be an unconstitutional overreach of federal power.

Congress quickly passed a revised version of the act which included the stipulation that the firearm had, “moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.” With this addition Congress supposedly provided constitutional authority for their actions and, while the Supreme Court has not revisited the issue, several Appeals Courts have upheld convictions under the new language.

GFSZ’s Feel Good
The GFSZA is one of those feel-good laws that so often pass in the wake of a tragedy – the Stockton, California schoolyard shooting, in this case – which do nothing to address the problem, but which leave a wake of unintended consequences. The GFSZA did nothing to prevent the rash of school shootings that plagued the nation in the 1990s.

Does anyone honestly believe that the Columbine murderers were deterred in the slightest by the law against bringing guns within 1000 feet of a school? Could the police have somehow been magically aware of the illegal presence of the firearms and been able to interdict the weapons before the murderers had the opportunity to start their killing spree? Unlikely. But a gun owner pulled over for a traffic violation who is carrying a gun in the car in an otherwise lawful manner could be charged with a federal felony (5 years and $5,000) if he happens to be within the mythical Gun Free School Zone.

The federal law prohibits anyone from being in possession of a firearm within 1000 feet of any accredited school or daycare center. One thousand feet is almost 3 city blocks, and the zone begins at the edge of school property, not the door of the school. In metropolitan areas these zones often overlap to the extent that lawful travel while armed is completely impossible. While the law does make exceptions for residents within the zone and anyone licensed by the state to possess firearms, it makes no exception for states that do not require a license to possess a gun.

What’s more, the GFSZA does not recognize licenses issued in other states. Though I have legally carried a gun for over 25 years and am licensed to lawfully do so in 34 states, I do not have a permit issued by my home state of Arizona. Even though Arizona recognizes both my Utah and my Virginia permits and the state requires no permit at all for lawful carry, I could be committing a federal offense virtually every time I leave my home with a loaded firearm because there are schools along almost every route out of my neighborhood.

The GFSZA is simply bad law. It violates the limits on federal authority in the Constitution. It infringes on citizens’ Second Amendment rights. And it doesn’t do anything to reduce crime. It’s ridiculous that this bad law hasn’t been repealed long before now.

Outlook Grim
Unfortunately the odds are not very good that it will be repealed in this congress. While Ron Paul has long been one of the staunchest supporters of the Second Amendment in Congress, his legislative proposals rarely go anywhere because the proposals tend to be aggressive, and because Paul’s not in with the “in” crowd. He often deviates from the party line when he feels that Republicans are straying from the constitutional straight and narrow. That principled commitment has also put Paul at odds with the NRA on issues such as the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which he felt was unconstitutional and voted against.

I fear Dr. Paul’s bill to repeal the GFSZA is running head-on into both of those problems. Politicians are terrified of any suggestion that they’re not “for the children,” and the Republicans and NRA are not inclined to work on something that makes Paul look good after he’s not supported them.

The only thing that can give this bill legs is a groundswell of grassroots support demanding that Representatives sign on as cosponsors and work for passage.

That means that, as usual, it’s up to you and me.
Tell Congress you want them to obey the Constitution, support HR-2613, and repeal the Gun Free School Zone Act.

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

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

Human beings have an individual right to defend themselves and their families, regardless of what country they live in along with an obligation to defend others who are unable to defend themselves.

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- At last count, a full half of the US Senate had signed onto a July letter to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton declaring their opposition to any United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) which includes infringement on US citizens’ rights to possess firearms.

While I applaud this effort, I have to say that I’m disappointed in the senators’ narrow focus in the letter.

Protecting the Second Amendment and warning Obama and Clinton not to agree to any treaty which might infringe on the rights of Americans ignores what the UN is doing to citizens of other countries. The right to arms is not just an American right, it is a basic human right extrapolated from the right to self-defense. Human beings have an individual right to defend themselves and their families, and citizens – regardless of what country – have a moral obligation to also defend others who are unable to defend themselves.

If the UN were forwarding a plan to limit voting to males only or to institute broad government controls over the press, our senators would not stop at our constitution and our borders in their denunciation of the plans. Instead they would expound upon the importance of universal suffrage and the necessity of a free press – for all people everywhere. They would not just “strongly encourage” the administration to “uphold our country’s constitutional protections,” they would demand that the administration reject and actively oppose any treaty which could be in any way construed to support such restrictions on basic rights in any nation.

The right to arms is as much a component of that revolutionary and successful philosophy called free speech or the right to assembly.

The right to arms is just as important a concept as the right to vote, the right to express oneself freely and publicly, and the right to a fair trial before a jury of ones peers. It is part of the progressive, liberal heritage of our nation. (From a time before the words “progressive” and “liberal” were co-opted by communists and socialists to mean government controlled.) The constitutional right to arms has roots in English Common Law, but the philosophy runs much deeper and broader than the English could ever manage because they were tied to a monarch. When America broke away from the monarchy we also cut the restraints that system placed on our understanding of liberty. We became the cutting edge, and embodiment, of liberal (libertarian) philosophy and we reaped the rewards of that philosophy. It is part of what made America so exceptional for most of the past 200 years, and the right to arms is as much a component of that revolutionary and successful philosophy as free speech or the right to assembly. It was seen as even more important than the right to vote, as that right was originally limited to only White, male, property holders while the right to arms belonged to “the people.”

Freedom is a religion which demands evangelism. We don’t have to require that other nations meet all of our standards before we will do business with them, but we should encourage right and oppose wrong – and restrictions on the individual right to arms is clearly wrong.

Members of the US Senate should understand the philosophical significance of the right to arms and the importance of promoting US philosophy and principles of freedom. Their letter focusing on only the potential impact of the proposed UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) on US citizens is much too narrow and shortsighted. Unfortunately, it seems the senators are following the lead of the NRA, who should definitely know better.

The UN ATT has been a distant rumble for the past several years with little progress being made and little exposure to the public outside of over-hyped rhetoric in fundraising letters from rights groups. I have tended to downplay concern about the treaty because it wasn’t showing much life, but now the treaty is getting closer to reality and it’s time to start worrying about something actually being passed by the middle of next year. The best way to keep that from happening is to pressure your politicians to return to principled arguments and to demand that Obama and Clinton actively oppose any arms treaty which includes restrictions on any personal firearms, ammunition, or components – not just in the US, but anywhere in the world.

Ask your Senators if they signed the letter – if not, why not – if so, thank them and encourage them to move to a more principled position. While you’re at it, if you’re a member of the NRA you might drop them a line asking why they are focusing only on the potential impact of this treaty on US gun owners rather than espousing and defending the principles of freedom for all people everywhere.

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

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- Most of the larger national media outlets are doing their best to ignore the Gunwalker scandal, but the word is dribbling out despite the best efforts of the Obama Administration and their lackeys in the mainstream press.

Those who know about the outrageous project should be demanding answers and accountability.

The recent hearings in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chaired by Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA), showed clearly that agents of the ATF and other agencies, working with the approval from the highest levels of the Department of Justice – no more than one desk below Attorney General Erik Holder, if not Holder himself – actively conspired and facilitated the sale of some 2000 or more rifles to suspected illegal firearms traffickers and then intentionally allowed those guns to continue in illicit channels with no attempt to track, interdict, or disable them.

ATF field agents who objected to the program were threatened and even fired. On one occasion an agent pointed out that people were being killed with guns supplied by the ATF and his manager responded with the callous cliché that if you want to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs.

Mexican authorities report that some 300 Mexican nationals have been killed with these guns along with at least one and possibly two US law enforcement officers. Those are some pretty costly eggs.

The President of the United States has told a Mexican journalist that he did not authorize the program and that Erik Holder didn’t either.

ATF and DOJ have claimed that the objective was to track guns up to Mexican “drug lords” and possibly topple a Mexican drug cartel, but the whole program was kept a secret from Mexican authorities and agents were ordered to make no effort to track the guns beyond the original purchaser. Agents watched as suspected firearms traffickers purchased dozens of AK-style firearms. They trailed the suspects, and guns, to a rendezvous where the guns were transferred to another vehicle, and then, in accordance with strict orders, they allowed the other vehicle, and the guns, to drive away without even an effort to identify the person or track or interdict the guns.

Meanwhile the ATF and DOJ have continued to promulgate inaccurate and deceptive statistics regarding firearms trafficking and the involvement of illegally trafficked firearms in crime in Mexico – statistics that are falsely inflated by the Gunwalker project itself. They have also continued with attempts to change congressionally mandated regulations to include the reporting and tracking of purchasers of more than one rifle in a given week.

While such reporting and tracking might seem reasonable on the surface, even including some firearm owners, the actual utility of the reporting program is questionable, and is a major usurpation of power by ATF. The Bureau is specifically forbidden in the same statute which authorizes such reporting for multiple handguns. What’s more, ATF is notorious for failing to delete information gathered in this manner as required by law, thus building a de facto registration system.

The evidence does not support the existence of any large-scale gun trafficking rings. The largest and most successful gun trafficking rings uncovered so far were those endorsed and supported by the ATF in Project Gunwalker, aka “Operation Fast and Furious.” Without ATF assistance forcing gun dealers to cooperate, these dealers would never have taken the chance of repeatedly selling large quantities of guns to suspicious-looking cash customers. And even then, ATF ignored the structure of these organizations. They were only interested in the straw buyers, not any of their immediate associates, and, as I mentioned above, ATF specifically forbade any disclosure of the Gunwalker program to anyone within the government of Mexico.

All that ATF seemed interested in was who bought the guns, how many they bought, and where the guns turned up in crimes. The fact that the guns did turn up at crime scenes – murders, maimings, and massacres, including of Mexican police officers or government officials – seems to have been of little concern to ATF and DOJ officials.

This limited interest suggests only two possible motivations: to build stronger, more incriminating cases against straw purchasers – the guys ATF has consistently insisted are the bottom of the food chain – or to generate statistical and emotional support for their requested increases in authority. Perhaps one was just a “happy side effect” of the other. In either case, the strategy was seriously flawed and hundreds of people lost their lives.

This administration intentionally allowed arms to flow into the hands of criminals and the policy factored in the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens and at least one US Border Patrol Agent. They have also intentionally blocked congressional and media inquiries into the matter and retaliated against ATF whistleblowers.

Compare the scope and reach of Gunwalker to Watergate.
Watergate began with a handful of overzealous political supporters incompetently trying to bug their opponent’s offices and the administration working to protect those loyal supporters. Gunwalker, from its inception, was a criminal enterprise directed from the cabinet level.

Where is the outrage and indignation – at the administration, at DOJ and ATF, at politicians for defending the guilty and intentionally obfuscating the issues, and at the media for virtually ignoring the story?

Don’t allow this story to fizzle out on the back pages, and don’t allow the ATF and this administration to be rewarded for this very bad behavior. Tell them that you want to see the administration held accountable. Write your local paper and television outlets. Tell them that you want to see better coverage of this scandal.

Your senators and congressmen will be home for the summer recess. Tell them that you want funding and authority to ATF curtailed until more safeguards against usurpation of rights can be established.

This is your government. It’s up to you to hold them accountable.

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- Dear Republicans: Could we please have a serious, pro-rights, pro-Constitution candidate for the office of President this time?

For the past several elections you have passed over good, pro-rights, pro-Constitution candidates – or never come up with any – in favor of wishy-washy “moderates” with poll-based values and elastic principles.

Make no mistake: the rights movement, and the wide array of activists concerned about constitutional liberty and restoration of the Republic, will not endorse, support, or actively work for any candidate who does not have a proven record of personal commitment to the Constitution and individual liberty.

Please do not be suckered into nominating another bland “moderate” based on the lie of “electability.” The question of a person’s electability can only be definitively answered in a flat-out run for office. Anything short of that is just speculation.

Granted, some would-be candidates are clearly unelectable from the start. Others are obviously long shots. But the only way to get a candidate’s true measure is to give your support to the candidate – or candidates – who best represent your values and vision for the nation and do your best to push that – or those – candidate(s) to the top of the list in the primaries, straw polls, and other preliminary popularity contests. Don’t let the pundits, the experts, pragmatists, “moderates,” or the mainstream media convince you that you should throw your support behind a candidate who doesn’t reflect your values and vision based on a wholly manufactured concept of electability.

Electability Hoax
To understand the Electability Hoax you need to understand the arguments about electability.

The assumption is that a hard right, or extremely conservative candidate is not electable in larger cities, statewide elections for Senate and Governor, and definitely unelectable for the office of President of the United States. Why? Because, the electability theory assumes that the voting public is neatly divided into three relatively equal segments: Republicans, Democrats, and independents/others and it is the independents/others who ultimately decide who the President (or Senator, or Governor) will be. Since this third voting bloc divides the Republicans and the Democrats, the pushers of “electability,” including most of the media, paint it as being in the middle philosophically and politically.

That is the central fallacy at the heart of the Electability Hoax: the myth of the independent, centrist voter.

The fact is that while more people have decided to officially disassociate themselves from formal party affiliation, most of those voters are just as ideologically driven as they ever were. Rather than reflecting some mythical middle-ground of political philosophy, they mirror the ratio of broad political opinions found in declared partisans.

A smaller, but nonetheless slice of independent voters make up the so-called third parties. None of those parties is called the Wishy-Washy Compromiser Party. Nor is there one called the Middle-of-the-Road-a-Little-Republican-and-a-Little-Democrat Party. These independent parties range from the Communist, Socialist, and Green parties on the “more government, less liberty” side to the Constitution, Natural Law, and Libertarian parties on the “less government, more liberty” side. The net effect is two core political philosophies, which are relatively evenly split with a slight advantage shifting from one side to the other.

The next fallacy within the Electability Hoax is the idea that whoever ends up being the Republican candidate will receive the same level of support – during the campaign and at the ballot box – from the Republican base its core interest groups. That is absolutely, utterly, and completely not true, and you Republicans should know better by now.

In a race between an anti-rights Democrat and a moderately pro-rights Republican, rights advocates will certainly trail along toward the side of the Republican, but they will not do it with gusto and a good many of them will simply walk away in disgust – as they did when Republicans offered George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, and John McCain.

Certainly it is essential that a Republican presidential candidate be able to draw votes from Democrats, independents, and third parties, but the key to those votes does not lie in moving away from core Republican values and issues, and toward those of Democrats. Moving toward the “middle” might pick up a few votes, but those gains are more than offset by the loss of enthusiastic support from the Republican base and natural allies.

We in the rights community desperately want a different President, but we don’t want it bad enough to get excited about a wishy-washy, unprincipled compromiser. If that’s what you offer us, Republicans, you can expect wishy-washy support from the rights community. But if you’ll do your part, we’ll do ours.

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

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- It’s 6 AM and a groggy Ken Wright is getting ready to start the day. Thinking about jumping in the shower, getting the coffee on, and wake the kids… Suddenly noise from outside draws his attention and he looks out the window.

He sees dozens of black-clad, armored men swarming on his lawn and now someone is pounding on the front door.

As he starts down the stairs in his boxer shorts the front door shatters and the heavily armed men charge into the house pointing guns and shouting orders.

They grab Wright, drag him from the home, throw him down in the front lawn and roughly handcuff him as the neighbors look on in horror. Wright is placed into a police cruiser and then sees the black-clad figures with their guns and body armor dragging his three children aged 3, 9, and 11 out of the house screaming and crying. They too are locked in the police cruiser where Wright can at least talk to them and try to calm them down. The search of the house goes on for six hours as Wright and the children sit helplessly in the hot police cruiser wondering what it’s all about.

Is it the FBI raiding a suspected terrorist cell? The DEA busting a major cocaine smuggling ring? A local SWAT team searching for a murdered wife? No, it’s a team of agents from the U.S. Department of Education Office of the Inspector General (EDOIG) looking for evidence of student loan fraud.

The Department of Education? With guns, armor, and battering rams?

This is not some far-fetched TV script or the delusional rantings of a kooky conspiracy theorist. These are the facts as reported by local Stockton, California media. Apparently the EDOIG agents were looking for evidence in an investigation of Wright’s estranged wife Michelle who does not currently reside in the home. It is not yet clear whether the EDOIG agents knew that Michelle Wright no longer lived there or that the children were in the home.

I have long been vocal in my strenuous objection to “No-Knock” and “Announce and Enter” search warrants. I believe they, and the paramilitary forces and tactics employed to serve them, are not only an affront to the Fourth Amendment, but are inherently dangerous to all concerned. Their use in certain types of cases dealing with drug gangs, kidnapping, murder, and terrorism might sometimes be justified, but their use in the vast majority of cases is simply unjustifiable. Military tactics employed in a case of student aid fraud – by an agency of federal bean-counters – goes well beyond unjustifiable and solidly into the realm of criminal.

I have previously raised concerns about the Department of Education, and various other bureaucratic agencies within the federal government, developing their own law enforcement agencies with full arrest powers and special assault forces. Over a year ago I raised an alarm after the EDOIG put out a request for bids to purchase 27 Remington 870, 12 gauge shotguns with 14 inch barrels and special, adjustable stocks. You can read that column by clicking here. The quote request included a brief statement explaining that such 14inch Remington 870s were the “only shotguns authorized for ED based on compatibility with ED existing shotgun inventory, certified armor and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.”

That statement raised even more questions. Specifically, why did the Department of Education have an “existing shotgun inventory” and “certified armor,” and why on earth would they have “combat training and protocol”?

Exploring those questions led to the startling revelation that Inspectors General for over two dozen federal agencies – from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Department of Veteran’s Affairs to NASA – have been authorized by Congress to seek law enforcement powers from the Attorney General without having to demonstrate any proof of need or ability. At this point it is not totally clear just how many of those IGs have taken advantage of the opportunity, but even just one is way too many − as demonstrated by the outrageous raid on Ken Wright’s home.

What if Wright had not realized that the people breaking down his front door were law enforcement? What if he had grabbed a gun to protect his home from the violent invaders? As I have previously reported, exactly that scenario played out in Tucson last month when Pima County Sherriff deputies raided the home of José Guerena. Guerena was shot some 60 times and died at the scene. The debacle is still under investigation. Similar tragedies are all too common with innocent victims, non-violent offenders, and officers paying with their lives.

How could anyone possibly justify placing Wright and his children’s lives – not to mention the lives of the EDOIG agents – in such jeopardy over allegations of fraudulent student loans?

The federal agent who swore out the warrant against Wrights home, the agents who executed it, and the judge who signed it should all face serious disciplinary action as should any agency or judge executing or issuing such warrants in such a cavalier and clearly reckless manner. Meanwhile, Congress needs to repeal the law authorizing law enforcement powers for bureaucracies.

Federal thugs – as these agents proved themselves to be – have no business coming into our communities and crashing into people’s homes – regardless of the validity of the allegations.

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

Everybody in this outfit is crazy except you and me. And I’m not so sure about you!

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- Who does speak for gun owners?

If you put six gun rights advocates in a room they will come out with at least seven different opinions on how we should proceed in the fight.

The fact is that in the gun rights war, as in any other endeavor which inflames people’s passions, an organization can maintain unity of spirit and clarity of focus right up to the point that the second person joins.

That’s when words like “Principle,” “Respect,” and “Communication” become extremely important – and the more people you add, the more important, and complicated those words become. While we each understand (to a degree) our own motivations, principles, goals, and fears, we don’t always communicate them clearly and we often don’t understand at all what is moving the other guy.

My father used to express the phenomenon by saying, “Everybody in this outfit is crazy except you and me. And I’m not so sure about you!”

Unfortunately it is all too often an accurate sentiment. When people feel passionately about something – particularly something which can not be scientifically quantified – they tend to either develop their own belief structure around the subject or cling tightly to a structure advocated by someone else – to the exclusion of all other opinions, theories, approaches, and ideas.

The fact is that anyone who identifies himself with a movement − regardless of the movement or its objectives − has already separated himself from the herd. By their nature, movement people are oddballs. They think independently and will follow a leader as long as that leader is going in the “right” direction − as they define it. Movements, and movement people, work best when they are dealing with generalities. They can unanimously call for gun rights, lower taxes, limited government, or whatever. Start getting down into the particulars of the rallying cry, however, and the movement tends to lose focus. Some always want to charge on to total victory while others advocate a more cautious approach and few can completely agree on fundamentals − like specifically which guns where, what taxes, how low, and to the detriment of what government services, or how “limited” government should be.

The devil is in the details.
Specific questions are not easy for one person to answer, and it’s even harder to bring a group to consensus. Reaching full agreement on the specific strategies and tactics a movement should employ to achieve its memberships’ diverse goals is utterly impossible. That means that the best any group can hope for is to move in the right general direction based on a clear set of principles and objectives. When a movement fractures into sub-groups, cliques, and factions, keeping those diverse interests from stepping on each other – and damaging themselves and the movement – is the great challenge.

The key to meeting that challenge is clearly enunciated principles and goals, straightforward communication, strong principled leadership, and respect with a real commitment to cooperation. If various groups within a movement – whether the gun rights movement, the TEA Party, or any other movement – put themselves in a position of competing with one another rather than cooperating with each other, they harm their potential. When they begin tearing down one another over disagreements on strategies, tactics, and fundraising, they set the stage for lots of wasted energy at best, and implosion of the movement at worst.

Within the gun rights movement there are numerous organizations and key individuals who deserve a certain level of respect due to their position, experience, and demonstrated expertise. These leaders have an obligation to perform, communicate, and cooperate at a certain level of professionalism and selflessness, placing the good of the movement over their own egos or interests and even the immediate interests of their organizations. In the forty-plus years that I have been observing and working in the rights movement I have only seen a few people who would stand in defense of personal enemies or in opposition to friends, based on principles and the good of the movement. My dad was one. Such leaders should be sought out, elevated, and supported whether they are leading a one-man crusade in a small town or heading the NRA with its millions of members.

No one organization or individual has a monopoly on being right. Not only is disagreement acceptable, it is desirable. But that disagreement needs to be civil and respectful, and should focus on actions and effectiveness, not assumptions and gut feelings. Established leaders must recognize that others, including people new to the arena, have good ideas. Newcomers to the fight need to recognize that the current leaders weren’t just handed their positions, they earned them, and their knowledge and experience should be respected – though it should never be followed blindly.

Respect, communication, and principles are the glue that gives power to numbers. This is true whether we’re talking about the gun rights movement, the TEA Party, the Church, or any other movement.

So who speaks for gun owners?

Gun owners do. They speak with many voices and in many tones. Some are more right than others − according to me − however, they are all more effective when they are speaking in harmony. Like Aretha Franklin said, it all starts with a little respect.

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- “I just want you to know that we are working on it,” Barack Obama told Sarah Brady regarding gun control. “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar,” Obama said according to Brady.

This interesting bit of news was reported in an April 11 Washington Post Lifestyle section story about Obama’s gun control and regulatory policy wonk Steve Croley. Toward the end of the article the writer, Jason Horowitz, mentioned a March 30 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney during which the President “dropped in.” He then quotes Sarah Brady relating how President Obama gave his personal assurance that he and his administration were working hard on a gun control agenda. Brady reported that Obama then told them about advancing the agenda “under the radar.”

What is truly startling about this story is the way it has been totally ignored by the rest of the media. Compare the media’s current silence with what happened during the 2000 presidential campaign when then NRA Vice-President (and GOP activist) Kayne Robinson told a group of rights supporters in California that electing Bush would mean “we’ll have a president where we work out of their office, unbelievably friendly relations.” The media went into a feeding frenzy over this comment to such a degree that Bush distanced himself from the NRA, publicly endorsed reinstatement of the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban and withdrew overt support for the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The story was carried repeatedly on virtually every major media outlet in the country – and it was not based on anything Bush himself had said. Here the leader of a prominent organization is claiming that the President himself had avowed active support for a highly controversial agenda and admitted that he was violating his own promise of transparency in pursuit of that agenda.

Yet the media ignores it.

Brady Campaign

Even the folks at the Brady Bunch are not spreading the news about the stunning reassurances from the President. There is nothing on their web site discussing, or even mentioning Obama’s chat with Jim and Sarah. Just the fact that a groups leaders were cordially welcomed at the White House, much less given a private, informal meeting with the President, would generally be something to crow about, but on their web site Brady’s focus is to “Tell President Obama to Ban Assault Clips!” (Assault Clips?)

The “Gunwalker” scandal, the push for registration of long-guns through mandatory reporting of multiple sales, and stricter interpretation of various gun laws are all part of the Obama administrations ongoing “under the radar” attack on rights. The recent ATF “study” on the importability of shotguns is one of the most obvious components of this multi-faceted plot against our rights and it is slipping by with little resistance.

As I have previously reported, the ATF “study” examines current laws and practices regarding shotgun imports and concludes that standards need tightening. Like a bank robber wearing a brightly colored hat to distract attention from identifying features, the ATF “study” prominently puts forward a list of features that distinguish non-sporting shotguns from sporting shotguns. As intended, the media, and the rights community, have almost universally focused on this list of features to the exclusion of other critical information in the “study,” most importantly a statement that the real test they intend to employ to determine importability is one of actual use, not features. If an importer cannot demonstrate that a particular shotgun style is popular for use in sports such as bird hunting and trap and skeet shooting, the gun will not be allowed into the country. No more will importers be able to replace “non-sporting” features like folding stocks, and pistol-grips with more traditional, sporting style options to pass ATF “sporting purpose” test. The report specifically disqualifies the very popular and growing sports of 3-Gun and tactical shotgun competitions based on the circuitous logic that since ATF rifle and handgun importability studies of several years ago did not recognized these sports, it would be disruptive for them to be recognized now.

Suggestions that import bans could be bypassed by manufacturing the guns in the USA fail to recognize that there are two different places in federal law where almost identical “sporting purpose” language is used: the GCA bases importability on “sporting purpose” and the NFA exempts shotguns from the definition of Destructive Devices based on “sporting purpose.” Once a particular style of shotgun is declared to be “non-sporting” for importation purposes, it is a natural, short step to declaring it “non-sporting” for NFA purposes – which would mean it, and any domestic shotgun of similar design, would automatically be classified as a Destructive Device and subject to all of the restrictions of the NFA.

As blatant as Mr. Obama’s “under the radar” assault on the Second Amendment is, it seems that the major media, and even the powerful NRA, have their radars turned off.

To receive The Firearms Coalition’s bi-monthly newsletter, The Knox Hard Corps Report, write to PO Box 3313, Manassas, VA 20108.

Copyright © 2010 Neal Knox Associates – The most trusted name in the rights movement.

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- According to the Oklahoma Rifle Association (ORA) and a good many state legislators from both sides of the aisle, people in Oklahoma are less responsible, less sensible, and less trustworthy than the people of Missouri, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, and 39 other states.

Or so it would seem based on the arguments they have been voicing against proposals that the state recognize citizens’ right to bear arms out in the open.

The primary proposal, SB129, carves out exceptions to Oklahoma’s firearms carry restrictions for persons carrying their firearms in plain view as long as they are holstered, sheathed, or slung. Like open carry laws in many states, the Oklahoma proposal would lift restrictions for anyone 18 or older and would not mandate a license or training class.

But, as seems to happen every time a state legislature begins entertaining legislation to broaden recognition of their citizens’ right to arms, the debate over open carry in Oklahoma has been conducted as though this is a new and untested idea. There has been much hype, speculation, and hypothetical anecdotal postulating from both sides of the issue. All of this non-evidence is presented as though the state is an isolated island nation with little or no contact with the rest of the world, much less the rest of the US.

In a letter mailed to every member of the Oklahoma House and Senate along with many media outlets, the ORA loudly declared their opposition to SB129.

In the letter they explained the reasons for their opposition as follows:

“First, The purchase of handguns by persons under the age of 21 is in violation of existing Federal Law.

Second, Allowing citizens, trained or untrained, to carry Rifles and Shotguns either in a scabbard or with a sling on city streets and into business establishments will create an atmosphere of hostility and distrust, not to mention create fear in those in our society who have an aversion to any type of firearm.

Third, The apprehension, created for the Law Enforcement Officers by the open carrying of long guns could create situations resulting in unnecessary use of deadly force.”

The first point is a distortion of the truth. While 18 to 21-year olds may not legally purchase handguns from federally licensed gun dealers, they have always been able to possess them and to legally acquire them through private purchase, inheritance, or as gifts from parents, relatives, or others.

The next two points distortions in logic; that carrying guns will scare people who are afraid of guns and that openly carried guns will excite police officers to the point that they will start shooting people they shouldn’t.

Even looked at this in a vacuum these arguments are nonsensical, but when put into the context of the experience of open carry in the US, they are simply idiotic.

There are 12 states which have virtually no restrictions on open carry and another 16 which recognize the right with few limitations. Another 13 require a license to exercise the right. One state, California, has very liberal open carry laws in rural areas, but restricts it in urban areas. The only states which completely forbid open carry are New York and Illinois – where the states are run by gun-hating big city politicians – and 5 Southern states, including Oklahoma, where the citizens’ rights to arms have never been restored since they were abrogated after the Civil War.

All of the speculation, hypothesizing, and hand wringing going on in Oklahoma, and the other states where citizens are actively trying to regain their lost rights, simply diverts attention from the facts. Open carry has been thoroughly tested and it has proven to generate none of the problems raised by the fear-mongers. There can be debate about whether such laws effectively reduce crime and the tactical wisdom of the practice, but these things are, again, just side issues. What really matters is that given the opportunity, people exercise their right to arms in a responsible manner. The record proves it and no amount of “what ifs” or “there was this one guys” can compete with clear irrefutable evidence from the states where rights are recognized.

We’re used to facing irrational emotionalism and arrogant elitism from the hoplophobes, but it is deeply troubling when the same irrational arguments are being put forward by the leaders of a state rifle association. Still, this mentality should not come as any great surprise as many gun club and association boards have exhibited similar narrow-mindedness in the past with bans on the use of Evil Black Rifles, military camouflage, and “humanoid” targets on their shooting ranges.

I don’t know whether the membership of ORA will rise up in outrage at these Directors and their decision, but I do know that ORA has lost all credibility within the rights community – and probably within the legislature.

To receive The Firearms Coalition’s bi-monthly newsletter, The Knox Hard Corps Report, write to PO Box 3313, Manassas, VA 20108.

Copyright © 2010 Neal Knox Associates – The most trusted name in the rights movement.

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has a long history of excess and overreaching and they’re at it again.

Using exaggerated reports of gun smuggling from the US into Mexico as their justification, the agency has filed for an Emergency Regulation requiring gun dealers to keep track of their customers and file special reports to ATF whenever a customer purchases more than one semi-automatic rifle within any 5-day period.

Such special reporting is already required for multiple sales of handguns and has proven to be thoroughly useless as a law enforcement tool.

ATF’s requested regulation – which is unconstitutional, violates a statutory prohibition against firearms registration schemes, and was obviously filed as an “Emergency” simply as a means of bypassing Congress – would be “temporary,” meaning that it would have to be renewed in 4 or 5 months, and is said to only apply to gun dealers in states bordering Mexico, though the regulation, as submitted, seems to be missing that specific limitation.

ATF Overreaches Again – Threatens Rights **Volk

At this point the proposed regulation is awaiting approval from the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA.) Political observers will recall that OIRA is headed by President Obama’s old friend Cass Sunstein who famously advocated for the abolition of all hunting and for the extension of legal rights – including the right to have a court-appointed attorney – to animals. While Mr. Sunstein is an attorney and college professor specializing, in part, in constitutional law, his record shows that his Constitution does not include the Second Amendment. It is expected that Sunstein’s office will approve ATF’s Emergency Regulation by the first week of January unless there is immediate and vehement objection from members of Congress and the public.

In the late ’70s shortly after my late father, Neal Knox, took over the NRA’s lobbying efforts, ATF leaders attempted to expand their power by implementing a regulatory scheme requiring that gun manufacturers add a government-defined 13-digit serial number to every gun and that dealers report detailed information, including that new serial number, to ATF for every sale. Records of those sales, guns, and purchasers were to be stored in ATF computers.

It was gun registration, pure and simple.

The scheme might have slipped through had it not been for the heightened visibility of ATF due to Dad’s efforts and his immediate sounding of the alarm when the proposal was introduced.

Congress had upon numerous occasions debated the idea of a federal gun registration law and had rejected the idea on each occasion. For ATF to decide to bypass Congress and implement such a registration scheme via regulation was rightly perceived as an affront by many members of Congress and their indignant response was to remove some four million dollars from the agency’s operating budget (the amount ATF said they expected to spend on the scheme.)

That overreach, along with egregious abuses of honest gun dealers by the ATF led to the introduction of the McClure-Volkmer Firearms Owners Protection Act to repeal some of the more onerous and confusing sections of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

It is to be hoped that current members of Congress will have a similarly indignant response to ATF’s overreaching in this instance as here again the agency is trying to implement by regulation something which the Congress has considered and rejected in the past.

Rights opponents will argue that rights activists like me are overly sensitive and unyielding in our positions and that we reactively oppose any firearms regulations regardless of how benign or effective they may be. There will be an inclination to accept ideas like this and then place the burden of proof upon rights advocates to explain why it’s a bad idea. Really, the burden of proof belongs to those who wish to interfere with our rights. It is up to ATF to show the legal authority to institute this proposed regulation and that it does not violate the spirit or intent of any existing law. It is also up to the ATF to show that their proposed regulation will be effective and productive as a means of fighting illegal gun trafficking.

The fact is that ATF can present no such evidence in support of their idea, just the suggestion that the proposal sounds reasonable and might be of use. That’s not good enough.

It is overreaching for an agency to follow after Congress and enact regulations where Congress has refused to enact laws, especially where Congress considered and discarded those exact actions.

It is extra-legal for an agency to ignore statutory limitations barring the collection or archiving of information about gun purchasers, not to mention limitations under the Paperwork Reduction Act forbidding unnecessary increases in paperwork burdens.

The multiple-sales reporting scheme claims to be aimed at keeping guns out of Mexico, but it fails on that point as well. First, it will have little effect on gun smuggling in Mexico for smugglers familiarize themselves with the laws they are breaking. They will easily avoid ensnaring themselves in such an obvious trap. Second, while the actual number of guns that arrive in Mexico from the USA is impossible to determine, we know that the number being reported is inflated since the ATF only traces those guns selected by the Mexican authorities. There is strong evidence that American civilian gun shops are only one of many sources of guns in Mexico, and a minor one at that.

Pictures of confiscated arms in the Mexican press routinely include grenades, rocket launchers and heavy machine guns, arms that aren’t in the US civilian inventory.

Finally, the proposed multiple-sale scheme places a significant burden on dealers and puts them at increased risk of prosecution for clerical errors if they fail to detect a repeat buyer in a timely fashion.

You can tell the ATF and Congress that you oppose the ATF’s overreach through any − or all − of the following ways:

1. Call the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulation Affairs, Department of Justice, Desk Officer at (202) 395-6466.
2. E-mail Barbara A. Terrell, ATF, Firearms Industry Programs Branch at Barbara.Terrell@atf.gov
3. Call your Senators and Representative: United States Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121.
   There is no such thing as reasonable infringement on liberty.

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

**Image: by Olegvolk.net

I took the little “I Voted” sticker and carefully placed it on the smooth stock of the pistol.

Virginia Citizens Defense League

Covington VA --(Ammoland.com)- This is not my idea, but is Jeff Knox’s idea: after you vote, place the “I voted” sticker on your gun’s grips for the rest of the day – now THAT’S a political statement that will get attention!

The antis are using sleight of hand in their ads to confuse voters. Unless you listen very, very carefully, this ad against Keith Fimian (who is running against anti-gun Gerald Connolly) makes it sound like the non-existent “gun show loophole” allowed Cho to get his gun:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qhORTQknuM&feature

The antis like, and encourage, such confusion. For example, in 1993 they were counting on the public thinking that the “assault weapon ban” dealt with machine guns.

Remember to vote your gun-rights first. Drive your neighbors, friends, and family to the polls if that’s what it takes to get them there.

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- Earlier this year I wrote about and participated in a brouhaha regarding concealed carry in Iowa.

The NRA had put forward a poor excuse for a carry reform bill that made the already complex maze that is Iowa’s gun law even more complex and dangerous to Second Amendment rights. Several of us were trying hard to get the bill improved before it ended up doing more damage than good.

The hero of that fight was a young State Representative named Kent Sorenson who is now being attacked for being too supportive of gun rights by his opponent in a tough State Senate race.

Not only is Sorenson being attacked as a pro-rights “extremist” by his opponent, Staci Appel, she is accusing him of defending “wife beaters” because he opposed a state expansion of the notorious Lautenberg domestic violence law. What’s even worse is that Appel was literally moments away from receiving the official NRA endorsement in the race when her first attack ads hit criticizing Sorenson for supporting pro-rights positions which are also all supported by the NRA. To their credit, NRA immediately withdrew their endorsement, but the association literally had to stop the presses to keep an endorsement of Appel from appearing in the pages of NRA publications.

Sorenson was the sponsor of an Iowa Constitutional Carry bill which I strongly supported and was instrumental in pushing a much weaker NRA-sponsored bill into revisions which eventually made the bill an acceptable, though disappointing vehicle for reforming concealed carry in the state. Not only did Kent Sorenson carry a heavy load in that fight, he has been an active sponsor or cosponsor of virtually every pro-rights measure introduced in the Iowa legislature since he was first elected a few years ago. Sorenson has not just been a supporter of gun owners, he has been an outspoken advocate on our behalf. That’s why I was thrilled to see him step up to challenge the anti-rights, liberal Democrat, Appel for a seat in the State Senate this year.

In the Senate, Sorenson would have even more influence and be a more effective advocate for the Second Amendment cause. But Appel’s attacks seem to be taking a toll. She has zeroed in on Sorenson’s opposition to a state ban on firearms possession by persons convicted of any misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. The bill also called for local authorities to immediately confiscate all firearms from anyone who is the subject of a restraining order or order of protection – including women who are routinely placed under such orders in retaliation when they get restraining orders against estranged husbands or boyfriends. Appel’s brutally tasteless ads are appearing on television and in direct mail and picture battered women with statements that “Kent Sorenson’s positions on guns are so scary, even the NRA has opposed them” and that “Sorenson actually supported letting people with a history of domestic abuse own a gun.”

Of Course Appel’s ads are suggesting that Sorenson’s position on the domestic violence bill was what was too extreme for NRA. In fact NRA opposed the domestic violence bill and negotiated changes to keep the Iowa bill from doing much more than mirroring federal law. What Appel’s ads are actually alluding to is the rift created when Sorenson pushed forward with his Constitutional Carry bill instead of withdrawing it in favor of the much weaker NRA compromise proposal. In truth, Sorenson’s bill was officially supported by NRA and Sorenson voted for the NRA bill when it cam to a vote. NRA didn’t oppose the Sorenson bill, they just didn’t really work for its passage because they felt that it couldn’t garner the necessary votes and they preferred an incremental approach.

At this point the race between Sorenson and Appel is statistically a dead heat and that’s not good news for Sorenson or gun owners. If Appel’s Domestic Violence attack strategy proves successful we can expect to see many more of these types of attacks all around the country in future elections. It has the potential to make Republicans run from the gun issue and it will embolden the anti-rights crowd to push even harder – especially on confusing and misleading legislation like the “No Guns for Wife Beaters” legislation exploited in this case.

The “wife beater” attack is not a new strategy, but if it works against Sorenson, it would represent a ray of hope for a whole lot of anti-gun politicians hopelessly bobbing about on rough political seas these days. In the wrong hands a little hope can be a very dangerous and destructive thing.

Here’s to hoping that this particular hope proves empty in short order. If you’re in Iowa or know anyone there, Kent Sorenson needs your help.

Visit: www.kentsorenson.com

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

I took the little “I Voted” sticker and carefully placed it on the smooth stock of the pistol.

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- I’ve told this story before, but I think it’s worth repeating. I started carrying on a regular basis over 25 years ago while I was a college student in Prescott, Arizona.

I rented a room in the back of Bucky O’Neill Sporting Goods and worked part-time for J. & G. Sales, the firearms wholesaler. Guns had always been an important part of my life and that was especially true in those days as we were shooting practical courses almost every weekend and frequently during the week.

I was participating as much as my school schedule and pocketbook would allow – taking advantage of my employee discounts, using the shops reloading gear, and making a little extra tuning up single actions for the cowboy shooters.

In the midst of all of that, the time came for me to cast my first ever, in-person ballot. Having been overseas for most of the time since my 18th birthday; I had never actually walked into a polling place to cast a vote before. I remember parking at the National Guard Armory, shifting my .45 from my belt to a concealed spot under the seat of my ’66 El Camino, and going inside to vote.

As I was leaving, a nice lady stuck a little oval sticker on my shirt with a flag and the words “I Voted” printed on it. The little sticker gave me a surprising sense of pride and I was feeling rather ebullient as I got back in the car and slipped the Colt back into its place behind my belt. As I did so, an idea struck me and I took the little “I Voted” sticker and carefully placed it on the smooth stock of the pistol.

There was no provision for concealed carry in Arizona in those days, so I always carried openly. I still do so frequently and I still place my “I Voted” sticker on the stock. I like the message it sends and the responses it generates.

As Election Day approaches, it is important that we all remember the sacrifices that were made to give us this great nation and to remember that freedom isn’t free. We also need to remember that safeguarding and restoring that freedom is much more easily done with a vote than with a gun.

With all of the important issues and challenges facing our nation right now supporting politicians based solely on their position on individual rights might seem myopic, but luckily there is a broader issue which every Second Amendment supporter can strongly stand behind.

That issue is Liberty.
There are clear choices on the ballot this year. On one side are those who see the Constitution as an obstacle to their objectives and something to be side-stepped, slipped past, or redefined. On the other side are those who respect and revere the Constitution and the full Bill Of Rights. This election could easily be seen as a referendum on the Constitution itself. GunVoters, need to look closely at the races and make sure that everyone they know understands the gravity of the current situation. We must take immediate action to shore up our supporters and block out our enemies.

This is true not only of the politicians you’re sending to Washington, but your local politicians as well. “All politics is local,” goes the saying. Recent battles over concealed carry and self-defense have demonstrated the importance of having solid supporters in state legislatures and governors’ offices.

It’s up to GunVoters to force early retirement on anti-rights, anti-Constitution politicians across the country.

If you really want to impact an election, bumper stickers and yard signs are a nice show of support but nothing moves a voter as much as when you look them in the eye and tell them that it is critically important that they vote for your candidate. If you do that with your friends, your family, your co-workers, everyone at church, all of your neighbors, and the kid who asks if you want fries with that, your earnest, eye-to-eye endorsement has the power to make a difference. If you can convince a dozen or more of your friends to do the same, and they convince their friends, and so on… together you can change an election.

Now is the time. Start earning the right to attach that “I Voted” sticker to your sidearm and be proud to be a GunVoter.

Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety is hereby granted provided this credit and link is included. Text is available at www.FirearmsCoalition.org. To receive The Firearms Coalition’s bi-monthly newsletter, The Knox Hard Corps Report, write to PO Box 3313, Manassas, VA 20108.

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

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

Volunteer and make a difference at GunVoter.org

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- By reading this column you prove yourself to be an exception to the rule.

You are an exception because you are doing things that most people don’t do or are not doing yet. First off, you are reading which is becoming exceptional all by itself, but not only are you reading, you are reading about politics and it’s still several weeks before a major election.

On top of that, you are reading about gun politics which most people understand is all written by dangerous radicals and extremists.

You are an exception because you care enough about our nation to seek out information, study issues, learn about candidates, and cast an educated vote.

A few days after the 2008 General Election I was exploring how Americans research before casting their votes and I discovered a surprising phenomenon. Looking at search data from the giant Google internet search engine to see how often people searched for key phrases, such as “Obama + gun control” in the days leading up to the election I found, as expected, that search traffic increased dramatically as the election drew closer. But the surprise was that the highest number of searches on key issues − almost double the previous day’s count − did not occur in the days before the election, but on the day after. The data indicated that to a significant number of Americans, the major political question is not, “What are we going to do?” but rather, “What have we done?”

To see twice as many searches focused on critical issues the day after the election, compared to the day before is troubling at best. I’d like to see Larry Sabato or some other political science professor do some serious research into this phenomenon and give us a better idea of what it’s all about.

Until then, I want to put the less confusing findings of my research to work. Search traffic for politicians’ names linked to key issues shows a very slow and steady increase leading up to the first week of September − Labor Day. After Labor Day there is a slight increase, but not the big bounce that intuition might suggest. The search numbers don’t actually begin to increase significantly until the two weeks or so before the election and then they do so dramatically (sometimes doubling day-to-day) right up through Election Day.

What this suggests is that, while we knew that most people don’t think about politics until after Labor Day, there appears to be an awful lot of folks who don’t look at politics until days or even hours before voting.

This news is both good and bad for activists wishing to impact elections. The bad news is that much of the hard work they do leading up to Election Day may be wasted, or at least not very economical.
The good news is that activists can have a major impact on an election right up to the last moment.

Pro Gun Volunteers Needed
When we launched www.GunVoter.org, in March of ’08, our vision for the candidate-focused forum site relied on a “build it and they will come” model. We hoped that if we created the space and let people know about it, they would flesh it out by each sharing their own candidate research for their corner of the country. So far that model hasn’t worked out because it seems people are more interested in learning than teaching.

Even now, with over 2000 registered users and countless thousands more visitors to the site, most of the hard data is posted by us, and we don’t have the staff to keep up with it all. This year’s elections are too important to wait for the users to drive the information so I’ve begun actively recruiting volunteers to collect and post relevant data and links. With that solid foundation of information I hope we’ll see the interactive component of the board take off as well. If you’re interested in participating in this effort, (especially if you know phpBB,) or you’d just like to see what’s going on, I encourage you to stop by the site and drop me a message.

In the next few weeks thousands of voters will be waking up and seeking information about the candidates. What those voters find could depend on you. The more information there is at GunVoter.org, the more useful it will be and the more people will find it, use it, discuss it, and add to it, making it more useful and drawing more visitors, etc. Please help spread the word about GunVoter.org to activists, candidates, political parties, anyone interested in gaining or sharing pertinent information, and if you’d like to lend a hand, let me know.

Knowledge is power only if it is shared and used. www.GunVoter.org is an ideal forum for sharing, growing, and applying knowledge to realize power and overcome the ignorance, apathy, and emotion that is destroying the Republic.

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

Gun Rights Policy Conference Flyer

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- Gun rights leaders and activists from around the country will be invading San Francisco, California this month and, while there should be plenty of explosive comments and possibly some other rhetorical fireworks, no shots are expected to be fired.

September 24, 25, and 26 are the dates for the 25th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference hosted by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The event is being held this year at the Hyatt Regency Hotel at the San Francisco Airport and, as always, it is absolutely free to attend.

GRPC is an opportunity for those concerned with protecting (or just learning about) the right to arms to come together with leaders of the movement to network with one another and discuss strategy, tactics, and techniques. They will review what has been accomplished in recent years and set goals and objectives for the year to come. And this year they will do it all right in the “belly of the beast” in San Francisco, California, home of Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer, not to mention rabidly anti-gun Mayor (and now candidate for Lt. Governor) Gavin Newsome.

The Second Amendment Foundation has taken the lead in coordinating and financing legal challenges to firearms laws around the country. They have brought successful suits against San Francisco’s handgun bans, New Orleans gun ban and confiscations after Hurricane Katrina, and most recently the McDonald case against Chicago before the Supreme Court which confirmed that Second Amendment protections apply to states and municipalities. Alan Gura, lead attorney in both the recent McDonald case and the landmark Supreme Court case, DC v. Heller, is expected to be in attendance to share his take on current and potential future court challenges.

While the media and pundits tend to ascribe credit or blame for all activities of the “gun lobby” to the National Rifle Association, the “gun lobby” is actually made up of numerous organizations and individuals, like AmmoLand Shooting Sports News, and others from all around the country – most of them volunteers – and all walks of life. National organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and The Firearms Coalition each have their own niche in the fight as do various state shooting associations, gun clubs, and grass roots organizations. The annual Gun Rights Policy Conference is an opportunity for leaders and activists from all of these groups to get together socially and ideologically to advance the cause.

Pink Pistols

Welcoming the GRPC to their hometown of San Francisco will be members of the Pink Pistols, a rights and training organization dedicated to spreading the gun rights and self-defense message among gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and the transgendered. Members of the Pink Pistols have been regulars at GRPC for years. Not stereotypical gun rights advocates, the Pink Pistols serve as more proof that concern about the right to arms transcends labels and geography. GRPC 2010 will have attendees from most of the 50 states as well as some from foreign countries. There will be Republicans, Democrats, and maybe even a few Socialist and Communist. Doctors, lawyers, union workers and members of the clergy will sit alongside school teachers, actors, and hunting guides for the two full days of lectures, discussions, and speeches as well as the evening receptions and hospitality suites. The political or social dynamic may occasionally be uncomfortable for some, but not uncomfortable enough to hinder the collaboration and encouragement that is the hallmark of the conference. Members of the Pink Pistols like to say that “Armed Gays don’t get Bashed,” and that sentiment crosses all social, racial, and religious lines. Individual peace of mind comes from an individual piece on hand.

As mentioned above, the Gun Rights Policy Conference is a free event offering attendees much more than just lectures and speeches. It is an interactive treasure-trove of expert panels, interesting presentations, and networking opportunities. Every registered attendee also receives a number of rights-related books to add to their libraries – absolutely free. With airfare costs down and a special GRPC room rate of $109 per night, a trip to San Francisco would be well worth the cost for anyone wanting to learn about and get more involved in the gun rights war.

Learn more about GRPC 2010 by clicking on the GRPC link at www.FirearmsCoalition.org. I hope to see you there.

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- If firearms were indeed as inherently dangerous as gun control advocates suggest, there should be millions of crimes, murders, suicides, and accidents involving firearms each year, and those numbers should be escalating since the total number of firearms and firearms owners have risen substantially over the past few years.

In reality, numbers of firearms related crime and accidents have steadily dropped while gun sales have gone through the roof and more states have liberalized laws dealing with the carry of arms in public. Independent, peer reviewed studies show that firearms are used 5 times more often to stop crime than to commit crime – and that doesn’t count police use or the deterrent factor of criminals knowing their intended victims might be armed.

Guns are used by private citizens to stop criminal activity some 2.5 million times each year and rarely do they even fire a shot doing it. Recreational shooters fire billions of rounds each year, but firearms injury accident numbers keep going down and are at record lows. Gun control laws only impact those who obey them – the law-abiding.

There is no logic – or evidence – to support restrictions on the good guys.

In the early 1970’s, when Neal Knox was editor and publisher of Rifle and Handloader magazines, he created a bumper sticker that posed the question, “Where Has a Gun Law Reduced Crime?” He knew that the answer to the question was “Nowhere.” Every credible study has reached that conclusion and that answer was borne out yet again in 2003 and 2004 respectively when the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, and the National Academy of Science both attempted to settle the issue once and for all. The CDC and NAS each set up panels of experts who conducted comprehensive reviews of all of the available research on gun control laws with the objective of identifying which specific strategies were most effective at reducing “gun violence” in crime, suicide, and accidents.

The two groups independently concluded that available data was insufficient to prove that any gun control laws, alone or combined, are effective at reducing criminal misuse of firearms, suicides using firearms, or firearms related injury accidents. Even though these organizations have track records of gun control advocacy, and the members of the panels were virtually unanimous in their personal support for gun control, they were still unable to locate credible evidence to demonstrate any positive effect from any gun control scheme.

The CDC and NAS panels reviewed over 250 published academic studies, almost 100 books, and nearly 50 government reports all covering some 80 different gun control schemes – from background checks and waiting periods to registration and outright bans on entire classes of firearms – some covering laws dating back 100 years or more. Had the subject of their inquiries been almost anything other than gun control, or the panels had been truly unbiased, the lack of supporting evidence would have been recognized as proof in itself and the panels would have reached the obvious conclusion that gun control laws do not work. That indeed they cannot work because they address tools not behavior or the social circumstances at the roots of that behavior. If gun control did work there would undoubtedly be enough evidence to allow these experts to reach a conclusion other than “inconclusive.” The experts’ inability to reach a positive conclusion is even more astounding when it is considered that the majority of the existing data has been generated by researchers who have publicly expressed a personal bias in favor of gun control and who were funded by organizations such as the Joyce and MacArthur foundations, which have gun control as part of their organizational agenda. The CDC and NAS panels’ conclusions of “inconclusive” reveal more about the researchers’ own bias than the causes and possible cures of criminal behavior.

One of the most difficult challenges of the gun rights movement is overcoming the emotional, gut reaction that people think of as “common sense.”

It is easy to assume that more gun control will result in less crime; it seems obvious. But the truth is counter-intuitive. In reality, more guns equal less crime while more restrictions result in higher crime. This is true because reasonable, responsible, law-abiding people remain reasonable, responsible, and law-abiding whether they have a gun or not, but when they do have a gun, they are better able to stop or prevent criminal activity. Criminals and idiots do what criminals and idiots do regardless of laws to the contrary and firearms restrictions merely guarantee them a safer working environment.

The truth is that there is no gun control law that actually works.

Gun control laws are wholly ineffective at reducing crime, suicide, or accidents, and they often snare innocents in their complicated red tape. They cost hundreds of millions of dollars in direct and indirect costs to taxpayers leaving fewer resources available for truly effective prevention programs. Advocates of gun control are long on emotion, but short on results. Citizens should demand proof of efficacy before funding or allowing any governmental agency to usurp personal liberties. Not only are gun control laws ineffective, they are counterproductive – not to mention unconstitutional.

Gun control is a crime.

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

Another Brick in the Wall for Gun Owner Rights - Image: Oleg Volk

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- (Washington DC, June 29, 2010) The Supreme Court of the United States delivered another victory to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights Monday when they declared Chicago’s handgun ban to be unconstitutional in the case of McDonald et al v. Chicago.

The real question in the case, which was managed and funded by the Seattle-based Second Amendment Foundation, was whether the Second Amendment to the Constitution restricts only the federal government or whether it also applies to state and local jurisdictions. In a 5-4 decision the Court majority held that the Second Amendment did indeed apply to the states under provisions of the 14th Amendment.

McDonald marks the second landmark Supreme Court victory for Second Amendment supporters (and lead attorney Alan Gura) in just 3 years. In June 2008 the Court’s Heller decision overturned Washington, DC’s handgun ban and declared that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right to keep and bear arms, but they were careful to keep their opinion very narrowly focused on just the circumstances represented in that case – gun bans in a federal enclave. With McDonald the impact spreads to encompass every level of government in every state in the Union. But, as in Heller, the Court was careful to include language supporting some limitations on the right, leaving gun control advocates hopeful that they can continue their harassment campaign against gun owners, and leaving rights advocates wondering what is ambiguous about the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed?”

The Court’s 5-4 split in this case was disheartening, just as their identical split in Heller was. When the McDonald case was argued I predicted that the final decision would be split and that there would be several separate concurring and dissenting opinions. I was right about that as there were three written opinions in favor of the decision and two in opposition. I had hoped for a more favorable split of 6-3 or even 7-2 in this case since it really was an obvious conclusion, but just as I did before the Heller case, I underestimated the lengths to which some Supreme Court Justices will go to reach the conclusion they wish to reach regardless of the evidence before them.

Of all of the 9 Justices and their 5 concurring and dissenting opinions, only Justice Clarence Thomas really got it right. Justice Thomas joined with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito in declaring the Second Amendment applies to the states and overturning Chicago’s handgun ban as a violation of that amendment, but only Justice Thomas based his decision on the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment rather than the Due Process clause that the others relied on.

As a practical matter the mechanism used to apply the right to arms to the states makes little difference. What matters is that it is applied. The application doesn’t change one way or the other, but many constitutional scholars were hoping that this case would be the key to correcting an outrageous opinion of the Court from 137years ago which emasculated the, then new 14th Amendment and paved the way for Jim Crow laws in the post-Reconstruction South.

Along with the majority opinion written by Justice Alito and the divergent concurrence written by Justice Thomas, Justice John Paul Stevens filed a rambling contradictory dissent, Justice Scalia wrote a scathing rebuttal to Stevens dissent, and Justice Breyer authored a dissent which was joined by Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor.

I had expected emotional nonsense from Justice Stevens whose hoplophobia is worn on the sleeve of his robe, but I had thought that Justices Ginsburg and Breyer might at least concur with Justice Thomas’ position on the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment even if they went on to weasel out of actually applying the Second Amendment to the states and throwing out Chicago’s handgun ban. Instead they simply hid behind a few specious arguments and refused to treat the right to arms as a real right. The dissent is outrageous enough to remove all doubt as to Sonya Sotomayor’s animosity toward the Second Amendment and should fuel opposition to confirmation of Elena Kagan who worked on gun control policy in the Clinton Administration and once lumped NRA in with the KKK as “Bad Guy Orgs.”

In the final analysis, the McDonald decision is just one more brick in the wall being built to protect the right to arms. It’s a big, heavy brick which, combined with Heller, serves as a good foundation. The court cases will continue as the lawyers and judges try to sort out just what restrictions might be allowable under the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” edict, but the real fight remains, as it always has, in the political arena and the election of politicians who have a healthy respect and understanding of Second Amendment issues and firearms ownership.

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

NRA and Freedom of Speech

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- A Firestorm was ignited this week when it was announced that House Democrats had carved out an exemption for the National Rifle Association in proposed new federal campaign law legislation and that NRA was no longer going to oppose the bill.

The new campaign legislation is a response to the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. The Federal Election Commission. In that case the Court held that groups like NRA could not be blocked from mentioning a candidate’s name during the 60 days prior to an election. The proposed legislation - which is still only available in synopsis form - would tightly regulate the political speech of any corporation (most non-profits and political organizations are corporations) and require extensive record-keeping and public disclosure of contributors names. Such disclosure is particularly hard on gun rights organizations as our members tend to be vehemently opposed to having their names put on lists - particularly lists identifying them as likely gun owners.

NRA has long been a leader in defense of constitutionally protected political speech and they had stepped up in opposition to this latest threat. Unfortunately, rather than stand strong on principle of liberty and the rule of the Constitution, NRA suggested to the bill’s sponsors that as long as the proposed legislation did not apply to NRA, the association would withdraw their opposition.

Good for NRA, but bad for every other group and the Constitution.

Detractors immediately accused leaders of the 4 million member gun owner group of betraying their principles, their state affiliates, and all gun owners who support groups other than the NRA.

NRA Executive Vice-President, Wayne LaPierre strongly defended the association’s actions during an interview with syndicated talk show host Lars Larson. LaPierre declared that as CEO of NRA his first responsibility was to protect and defend the Second Amendment and NRA’s ability to defend those rights via the First Amendment.

LaPierre repeatedly stated strong personal and corporate repugnance to any attempt to abridge First Amendment rights, but made it clear that as long as the, so called, “DISCLOSE Act” did not directly impact NRA the association would not actively oppose the bill. In LaPierre’s words, “We’re not in it.”

In an ironic twist it appears likely that the NRA deal has seriously diminished the chances the “DISCLOSE Act” had of passing. At least three Democrat Senators have expressed their opposition to the bill; Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Dianne Feinstein of California object to NRA being exempted from the speech restriction bill, while Ben Nelson of Nebraska opposes the whole idea of restricting political speech. Their opposition places the Democrats’ ability to break a filibuster in serious doubt. Of course a filibuster would only succeed if all Republicans in the Senate were to stick together – something they are not noted for.

House members are also balking at the bill as the outrage of the grass roots is beginning to burn up their telephone and internet connections and more members of Congress learn the particulars of the bill and of the special treatment allotted to NRA.

Conservative and liberal groups alike are loudly objecting to the NRA exemption. This brings much-needed exposure to the speech limitation legislation and is causing conflict among the supporters of the bill. Many oppose the NRA exception, but many more, who depend on GunVoter support for reelection, say they will not support the bill if NRA or GunVoters oppose it. Sponsors of the bill are in the difficult position of either staying the present course and muscling through the objections of their fellow Democrats, broadening definitions to exempt many more groups, or removing the NRA exemption and having one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the country once again fighting the bill with all of their resources.

The confusion and conflict among Democrats is good news for supporters of liberty and the Constitution.

Had the current political situation been created in any manner other than NRA placing self-interest above constitutional principles I would be thrilled with the situation, instead I am frustrated and disappointed. As a Life Member of NRA I strongly support their political agenda as well as their shooting programs. In this instance I fear that Mr. LaPierre and NRA leadership have seriously shot themselves in the foot and their intransigent, unapologetic attitude is just adding insult to injury.

NRA’s opposition to the rape of the First Amendment should not be based solely on how such rape will affect them directly, but also how it will affect the movement as a whole, their state affiliates and fellow rights organizations, and the integrity of the Constitution itself. When they accepted this deal, NRA abdicated the moral high ground in favor of wallowing in the mud with the swine.

To receive The Firearms Coalition’s bi-monthly newsletter, The Knox Hard Corps Report, write to PO Box 3313, Manassas, VA 20108.

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- With a decision expected from the Supreme Court later this month, the importance of the McDonald case challenging Chicago’s handgun ban was brought into stark relief last week when an 80-year old Chicago resident used a handgun to stop a violent home intruder.

Reports indicate that the intruder broke in through a back window of the octogenarian’s home in the early hours of May 26 and then fired on the homeowner who promptly returned fire, killing the intruder. Police and prosecutors said the shooting appeared to be justified and that no charges would be filed in the slaying, but there was some question as to whether the homeowner – the crime victim in this case – might be charged for possessing a handgun in his home, a violation of Chicago’s strict handgun ban.

Luckily for the elderly homeowner, Illinois passed a law a few years ago barring prosecution of persons for violating local handgun bans when their violation comes to light through successfully using their “illegal guns” to defend themselves and their families from violent attack. That law was passed in response to public outcry when a homeowner in Wilmette, a Chicago suburb, was charged with illegal gun possession after shooting a burglar in his home. It is worth noting that Senator Barack H. Obama twice voted against this bill.

Of course, this leaves residents with a tough question: whom do they fear more, the police or criminals?

The Supreme Court is expected to strike down Chicago’s ban when they release their decision in the case of McDonald v. Chicago. That decision is scheduled to be announced toward the end of this month and answers the question whether the Second Amendment restricts states and municipalities from enacting harsh gun laws. It is likely that there will never be a clear and complete definition from the courts as to exactly what restrictions are acceptable and what are not and at this point there is very little jurisprudence on that subject so Chicago will doubtlessly respond by implementing some less comprehensive, but equally onerous restrictions once their total ban is rejected. Expect the wrangling over what is and what is not an infringement of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” to be bouncing through the courts for at least the next two or three decades.

Meanwhile, almost 500 miles to the southwest of Chicago in Omaha, Nebraska – another city plagued by gang violence and ill-conceived firearms restrictions – a former security guard and competitive shooter was leaving his neighborhood Walgreen’s when two men wearing ski-masks, one wielding a sawed-off Remington 870 12 gauge shotgun, burst into the store and began threatening customers and employees. Without hesitation the man drew his licensed and registered handgun from the waistband of his pants and shot the attacker brandishing the shotgun who immediately turned and fled the store, collapsing and dying outside. The other would-be robber ran up an aisle and tried to hide but was apprehended by the armed patron and held for police.

Again police and prosecutors declared the shooting justifiable (one of his bullets actually traveled down the barrel of the shotgun lodging in the action – there could be no better proof that he was being threatened). As a reward, the hero received a citation for illegally carrying a concealed firearm. Even though the man was licensed by the city to carry the gun, and the gun was registered with police, he did not have a Nebraska concealed carry permit and since he had the gun tucked into his waistband rather than in a belt holster he was cited for a violation of open carry rules.

The police warned the citizen that he should take precautions for his personal safety since his name, picture, home address, and place of employment had been prominently featured in news reports and he killed a known gang member whose death the gangs might wish to avenge. This after confiscating his gun as evidence in the shooting. The Nebraska Firearms Association stepped in and offered a monetary reward – the price of a new Smith & Wesson .40 caliber auto – but Omaha police refused to register the new gun.

Why? He has an open citation for carrying concealed without a permit!

We’d be interested to know how the Omaha city government believes their registration law is working. No doubt the sawed-off 870 the dead perpetrator used was duly registered and its owner properly permitted to carry it into the Walgreen’s that night.

More information about Omaha’s miscarriage of justice can be found in the Nebraska section of www.GunVoter.org.

Both of these cases highlight the fact that “gun control” laws have no effect on criminals. No gun control law – not a ban, not registration, not a permit system – can have any useful effect on any criminal use of a gun. The only people gun laws impact are the very people to whom those laws should not apply: the law-abiding, the responsible, the productive citizens.

It’s obvious that Chicago and Omaha want to accomplish something with their gun laws. But their goal sure isn’t stopping violent crime.

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(Ammoland.com)- The 139th NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits was held last weekend in Charlotte, North Carolina and it was a record-setter with over 70,000 in attendance, including three representatives of The Firearms Coalition, my brother Chris, sister Shan, and myself.

Due to scheduling conflicts and airline delays the three of us converged on Charlotte at about 4:30 Friday afternoon, just in time to get cleaned up for the Grass Roots North Carolina “Gala for Gun Rights and Second Amendment Symposium.” The event was held at the Marriott, Charlotte City Center and I was one of the speakers along with Joe Tartaro of GunWeek and the Second Amendment Foundation; John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime; US Senator Richard Burr; and Alan Gura, lead attorney in both the Heller and McDonald cases. GRNC was kind enough to allow Chris to set up a table in the back of the room where sales of his book, Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War, were brisk. Chris donated a portion of the proceeds to GRNC.

The event was a rousing success and an inspiration to all those lucky enough to attend, but we later found out that there was a problem. While we were celebrating progress in the battle to restore and protect the right to arms and discussing strategies for furthering that right, the hotel management was downstairs trampling on those rights and making criminals of many of the people in attendance as well as potentially hundreds of other hotel guests. The way they were doing this was by simply taping a piece of paper to the front door declaring that guns were not allowed on the premises. Under North Carolina law, carrying a firearm on a property which has been posted as “gun free” is a Class 2 misdemeanor.

The manager of the hotel ducked and dodged and dissembled when challenged about the sneak attack, but the bottom line remains that while the Marriott was welcoming our patronage – and our money – they were simultaneously thumbing their nose at us and placing us at risk from both criminals and authorities. Several of the “Gun Rights Examiners,” a collection of on-line journalists at www.Examiner.com, have joined Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner and President of Grass Roots North Carolina, Paul Valone, in calls for boycotts of Marriott hotels and a phone, mail, and email campaign to educate the chain’s management about their insulting and unreasonable actions.

Beyond that little bit of excitement, which is still playing out, the convention was pretty typical. In recent years the NRA has done more and more to involve politicians and celebrities while member participation in the actual business of their association has been reduced to little more than rubber-stamping staff and Board decisions and desires. All of the hard-won reforms enacted during the members’ revolt at Cincinnati in 1977 have been slowly done away with to the point that members barely have any voice in the organization at all any more. During this year’s members’ meeting the reports of officers ran long and the call for adjournment came early so if there were members wishing to ask questions, express concerns, or offer resolutions, they had no opportunity to do so.

Members do still vote for Board of Director candidates, but with so many candidates, so many eligible voters, and so little information about the candidates – with the staff and PR company controlling the publications containing the ballots – it has been clearly demonstrated that the current leadership can dictate their desires and there are enough “good sheep” to provide the votes needed to keep their “winning team” in total control.

The few votes needed to ensure that control should be a serious source of shame to every member. This year the association sent ballots to 1,574,096 members eligible to vote, but only 109,381 ballots were returned and only 105,040 were judged to be valid. That’s a valid return rate of less than 7% – from the oldest, most powerful civil rights organization in the country! NRA prides itself on its ability to turn out voters and shift the outcome of elections and yet they get less than 7% participation in Board of Director elections!?!

That is beyond appalling; it is downright scary.

The results of this year’s election turned out much as I’d expected, but there were a few surprises. As I had predicted, the celebrities and politicians mostly skated to easy victories and as I had hoped, the few incumbents I endorsed all won with comfortable margins. Several of the new candidates I had endorsed also made the cut and a couple I had thought shouldn’t have run and couldn’t win, Joaquin Jackson and Larry Craig did manage to retain their seats. Donn DiBiasio, the incumbent I most ardently opposed, did not make the cut, but he slipped back onto the Board for one more year by getting himself elected to the 76th Director position during the convention. That means he’ll probably take another shot at it next year. Rest assured I’ll have more candidate information and my picks posted early at www.GunVoter.org.

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

Attorney Alan Gura with GRNC co-founder Walt Dannel. Photo: Michael Honeycutt, http://michaelhoneycutt.us/

Grass Roots North Carolina for Firearms Education

North Carolina --(AmmoLand.com)- Friday night, 150 guests enjoyed filet mignon and grilled swordfish while meeting the biggest names in gun rights at GRNC’s Gala for Gun Rights. Held at the Charlotte Marriott City Center, blocks from the NRA convention, Gala speakers included DC v. Heller attorney Alan Gura, Senator Richard Burr, 8th Congressional contender Tim D’Anunzio, Second Amendment Foundation director Joe Tartaro, Firearms Coalition co-director Jeff Knox, and WBT Radio host Tara Servatius.

What no one expected, however, was the appearance of internationally-renowned concealed carry researcher John R. Lott, author of “More Guns, Less Crime” (just released in a 3rd edition). When Dr. Lott showed up to buy a ticket to the event, he was quickly shunted to the head table and asked to speak.

Ms. Servatius acted as emcee for the evening, while GRNC president Paul Valone opened and closed with a call to action for gun owners in the 2010 elections. For full details of the event, including the many other notables attending, go to:

For photos, go to: http://grnc.org/symposium/

For a full gallery, including photos of individual guests, go to: http://michaelsmojo.com/grnc

To order photos, contact photographer Michael Honeycutt at: honeycuttphoto@gmail.com

Raffle Winner
Congratulations to Rick Foster, who won the Remington 700 CDL SF Limited Edition in 7mmRemington Magnum donated by Remington Arms. After Mr. Gura conducted the drawing, Ms. Servatius announced the winner.

Thanks To All
Gun owners should offer hearty thanks to primary event sponsors Remington Arms and Tim D’Annunzio (the latter lead the 8th Congressional primary and faces a runoff on June 22), as well as Hyatt Guns, Gunner’s Alley, Charlotte Checker Cab, and Technikserv Printing & Graphics.

Thanks also go to the many volunteers who conducted web sales, promotion, event setup, photography, videography, the raffle and far, far more. Without volunteers, like these, GRNC would not be the success it is.

Finally, thanks to the folks who paid their hard-earned money to attend. As promised, we will use all of your help in retaking our country this November.

If you missed the Gala for Gun Rights, you missed a very good time. We hope to see you at GRNC’s next event.

Read Paul Valone’s Examiner piece on this event: http://bit.ly/GalaForGunRights

Dark Cloud On The Horizon
During the event, the Charlotte Marriott City Center actually had the gall to post “no firearms” signs WHILE PEOPLE WERE AT THE EVENT. More on this will be released tomorrow.

Firearms Coalition co-director Jeff Knox addresses Gala for Gun Rights. Photo: Michael Honeycutt, http://michaelhoneycutt.us/

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

National Firearms Training Week

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(AmmoLand.com)- National Training Week, July 4 through 11, is set aside in conjunction with Independence Day to remind people that liberty and independence are closely tied to responsible possession of firearms.

Every American owes a debt of thanks to our forebears who saw fit to enshrine the right to arms in our Constitution and to use that right to defend our liberty for the past 234 years. National Training Week is an opportunity to exercise that right and to share it with others.

There are endless reasons for getting involved: Manufacturers, resellers, and range operators can grow their businesses by promoting this event and then making firearms, ammunition, training, and shooting facilities more affordable and accessible leading up to and during this special week. It is an ideal time for ranges to host the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s First Shots program and for clubs to invite the public to Open House days.

Firearms enthusiasts get an excuse to burn through some of that ammo that’s been stacking up and dust off those neglected guns. It’s also a great time to ask a friend and coworkers to go shooting and introduce them to the fun and history of firearms.

National Training Week also happens to fall just a few weeks before the deadline for voter registration leading into the all-important November elections. This makes it a perfect time to try and make sure that every shooter and gun owner is registered to vote and is reminded of their duty to cast a ballot. The site www.GunVoter.org is prepared to assist in that effort with voter registration information and links as well as information on the candidates and races around the country.

National Training Week is a grass roots idea initiated by Alan Korwin of Bloomfield Press, the people who print the gun law books. It has been endorsed by most national gun rights organizations including The Firearms Coalition, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Gun Owners of America, and the Second Amendment Foundation along with dozens of state and local organizations and clubs. Talk to your favorite groups about participating! The Appleseed Project will be hosting at least 15 of their tremendous shooting/training/history events around the country over the two weekends of National Training Week so there’s likely to be one near you.

The key to making National Training Week a success is getting the word out and the key to getting the word out is you. Go to the NTW page of the Bloomfield Press website at www.gunlaws.com/NationalTrainingWeek to download fliers to post in store windows and on club bulletin boards. Copy this article and send it to everyone you know. Talk with gun shops about planning discounts and specials. Talk to ranges about offering free gun rentals and having factory rep days during the week. Be sure to talk to your club about using National Training Week as a recruiting tool to bring in new members and to showcase facilities for the community. And of course, when you get something lined up, send an announcement to the local media to generate publicity.

What a great way to celebrate Independence Day week – at the range with family and friends exercising your rights. To preserve the hard-won liberty entrusted to us we must remember our past as we look to the future and unite to ensure that the very best among us are in the lead in these troubled times. National Training Week gives us an opportunity to forge bonds between the past and the present and build bridges to the future.

Take your grand-kids shooting and save the republic during National Training Week!

The Firearms Coalition is encouraging state legislators to introduce tax amnesties on guns and ammunition in recognition of National Training Week and is hoping to use the week as a kickoff to their new “GunVoter Rewards” program offering discounts on guns, ammo, and accessories for folks who fulfill their obligation to vote.

Of course just voting isn’t enough. People need to know where candidates stand on the issues before they cast their ballot. That’s where www.GunVoter.org comes in. At GunVoter.org folks can get information on candidates at all levels of government and from all kinds of sources. Since GunVoter.org is an open forum, members are welcome to post any and all pertinent information about any and all candidates for office, federal, state, and local. And since GunVoter.org is non-partisan and never makes candidate endorsements, the site can be readily recommended by non-profits who don’t want to be accused of electioneering.

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

Your Duty as a Gun Owner to Vote

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(AmmoLand.com)- I propose that the “firearms fraternity” begin placing as much emphasis on voting and voter education as we do on safety and safety education.

Unintentional firearms injuries and fatalities have dropped by some 60% over the past 20 years while the number of firearms in circulation has more than doubled. These amazing results are not due to government programs, laws, or regulations.

They are a result of education and an almost universal acceptance of and insistence on adherence to the basic rules of firearms safety. Gun owners not only practice firearms safety, they advocate for it and expect it from others, and they shun anyone who fails to abide by the rules. The improving firearms safety record is a stellar example of positive peer pressure. We in the firearms fraternity need to extend that success into the realm of voting.

Gun owners should see voting in every election, and having a general understanding of the candidates’ positions regarding rights, as a core obligation for themselves, their friends, and their family. Those who do not vote – regardless of their excuse or rationalization – should be seen as letting down their brothers and sisters in arms. They are failing in their obligation as citizens, and empowering the enemies of liberty. In short, GunVoters need to look at gun owners who don’t vote with the same incredulity that they would look at a person who recklessly waves a gun around with a finger on the trigger. Excuses like “My vote doesn’t matter” should be received with the same disdain shown when someone says “Hey, it isn’t loaded.”

While it is too much to expect every gun owner to immerse themselves in politics, it is not too much to expect them to cast an informed vote every time the polls open. Activist GunVoters can do more than they might realize to improve the turnout among other gun owners by using social pressure. That’s because social pressure is what gets most people to the polls in the first place. Experts who research voting patterns and motives have boiled it down to these few broad factors: “Does my vote matter?” “Will my vote benefit me or others?” “Do I feel obligated to vote regardless of benefit or impact?” “How much does voting cost me in time, hassle, etc.?”

If the answers to the first three questions outweigh the answer to the last question, the person votes, otherwise they don’t. With most people realizing that their one vote, among thousands or millions, does not affect the outcome of an election, it is the sense of duty, obligation, or tradition which tips the scale in favor of voting.

It is that sense of obligation that activists need to plant and nurture in every gun owner and to spread to every close friend and family member of gun owners. Gun owners are generally good about voting, but we must work to make it a core tenet of the “firearms fraternity” that gun owners vote every chance they get. And they vote with individual rights at the top of their candidate qualification criteria.

As patriots and inheritors of the sacred trust of the Second Amendment, gun owners have a duty to vote as an expression of faith in our Constitution and way of life, as an expression of appreciation and connection to the men and women who gave us these blessings and those who have defended them through the generations. Voting is not only homage to the past, but also a promise to future generations that we will do everything we can to provide them with the same rights and opportunities that our parents and grandparents passed on to us.

Along with stressing these traditional values, we must establish a new tradition of voting as the fulfillment of an obligation to one another to do our part to protect the Second Amendment and the entire Constitution. If we can develop and nurture such a voting culture among gun owners, we can be the most formidable force in American politics.

An important step toward achieving this goal is easy access to reliable information about elections and candidates. That is what www.GunVoter.org is all about. The vast majority of Americans – gun owners and non-gun owners alike – are simply not interested in politics and find it confusing and unsettling. That leaves it up to GunVoters like you and me, those of us who do follow politics, to make sure that the rest of the fraternity can easily find the information they need to be responsible, informed voters – GunVoters.

Order Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War today and receive a free subscription to the Knox Hard Corps Report newsletter. Learn about the past and keep up with current news to better secure your rights. Get it all at www.NealKnox.com

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(AmmoLand.com)- Conditions have lined up for 2010 to be the year of the perfect electoral storm. But in order to create the kind of storm the Republic needs, one that cleans out an insubordinate and defiant Congress, GunVoters and pro-rights activists need to get organized.

The time to start is now.

Just as my friend, noted author and radio host Dave Ramsey says about saving money, it’s never too early to get involved in politics, but it’s better to get involved late than not to get involved at all. Whether you’re reading this in May, or next October, you need to take action.

There are many ways to participate in the political process and all of them are important. The first, and most fundamental, is to vote. Make sure that you are registered to vote and that you show up on Election Day. Dismiss the excuses. I’ve heard them all and they are all lame.

“Voting conflicts with Opening Day.” Do you want to keep your “sniper” –uh- deer rifle? Get a mail-in or absentee ballot.

“They draw jury pools from voter registration rolls.” We need more gun people on juries. Besides, most states draw jury pools from driver license rolls.

“I don’t want to be on a list.” You’re already on a passel of lists. Deal with it. Don’t cower. Stand up and take your country back.

“My vote won’t make that much difference.” Nonsense. America entered the 21st Century with the closest Presidential election in history in 2000. That and other momentous elections have been decided on razor thin margins. Comedian Al Franken won a Senate seat by 312 votes. A few votes can make a huge difference.

As important as it is to vote in the November general election, it is even more important to vote in the primary. In many districts, the primary is the real election. With a smaller pool and a lower turnout your vote has more effect. If you follow the primary campaign, you’ll develop a feel for the issues, and you’ll get to know the candidates. The world of politics is a small town and you’ll see the same faces. Last year’s losing legislature candidate could be next year’s winning county commissioner.

Voting matters, but your vote matters more when you bring votes with you. Not only do you need to make sure you’re registered, you need to make sure that the people around you are registered as well – your family, friends, club members, guys at the range. When you find a candidate you can support, you can help that candidate get elected by talking to your friends. Just telling a friend that you know a candidate who is running, that you think he’s a good guy, and suggesting that he deserves their vote can make a huge difference, especially in a tight race.

An extra step you can take is to become a Deputy Registrar and register voters yourself. In some states you have to take a class, but in others you simply fill out a form, swear an oath to abide by the rules and grab a stack of forms. Every gathering of gun people is a gathering of potential GunVoters. Gun shows, matches, club meetings, all can benefit from the added dimension of registering voters. Contact your county clerk for details.

If you follow the primary campaigns and get to know the players, and like to meet people and network, you may want to take the step into the wider world of party politics. Political parties are built around precincts, which are the very lowest political subdivision. If you look at the very bottom of your general election ballot you will probably see a few names running for the office of Precinct Committee Member. It’s not unusual to have several blank spots. Quite often membership on a precinct committee can be yours for the asking.

What party you choose to join is up to you, but it is a choice not to be taken lightly. Both major parties richly deserve the contempt they receive, particularly from the independent voters. But the system is rigged to favor the parties. The Libertarian Party is a great movement, but regrettably, has demonstrated little ability to put candidates in office. Few other “third” parties are worth consideration.

All political parties should be well-salted in their rank and file with GunVoters, so make your choice and run with it. The precinct committees manage all their party’s political activities in their neighborhood. Pitching in and helping can create goodwill and can give you a level of influence that might surprise you.

The precinct committees also have a great deal of influence on candidates and the campaigns they run, as well as on the politicians once they are elected. “All politics is local.” So said past-master politician Tip O’Neill. The precinct committees are not only a source of volunteers for campaigns, they are also sounding boards for new issues. Every politician picks a few bellwether constituents from their district to provide feedback and advice as to what the folks at home think.

Regardless of how distasteful, boring, or frustrating you might find our political process, it is what we have and ignoring it won’t make it any better. As a matter of fact, ignoring it will make things a lot worse.

Order Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War today and receive a free subscription to the Knox Hard Corps Report newsletter. Go to www.NealKnox.com

Copyright © 2010 Neal Knox Associates – The most trusted name in the rights movement.

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA - -(AmmoLand.com)- Dr. Ignatius Piazza, founder of Front Sight Firearms Training Institute, is fond of talking about “the comfort of skill at arms.”

It’s not only a part of his sales pitch it’s also an integral part of the overall philosophy taught at the school. It is an important concept because having full confidence in your own ability to handle almost any serious encounter that might arise is a very comfortable feeling. Of course that comfort must never be allowed to slip into complacency or cockiness and that too is emphasized in Front Sight training. The comfort of skill at arms removes anxiety and makes the world a much more inviting, less threatening place.

There is a downside to the comfort of skill at arms though and that is the intensified discomfort of being disarmed.

I have carried a gun on an irregular basis over the past 25 years, I think I was like most concealed carry permit holders in that I didn’t carry all of the time, just those times when I was stretching my comfort zone a little: Road trips, visits to unfamiliar areas, walks in the wilderness or the wilds of an urban setting… It wasn’t so much that I was carrying only when I expected I might need it, but more that I didn’t carry in situations where I was comfortably confident that I would not need it.

It has only been in the past few years that I began carrying virtually all of the time. Again, this was not due to a fear that something might happen, but rather as a way to increase my comfort and familiarity with the gun on my hip. I realized that if I was carrying only when I was “uncomfortable” that meant that in that uncomfortable situation I had the added discomfort of a gun behind my belt that was not as comfortable as it should be.

Widely accepted training doctrine holds that in a serious, life-threatening encounter you can expect to function at about 50% of the skill level you demonstrated in your most recent practice session (assuming frequent practice sessions.) Think about how that 50% skill degradation is impacted by different clothing, different physical positions, and not having the luxury of adjusting your holster position right before the draw. You need to know exactly where your gun is riding so you can get a good grip leading into a smooth draw from any position. The gun on your belt should be as normal to you as the billfold or keys in your pocket and the only way to achieve that level of comfort is to make carry your regular routine – a habit.

Once I began carrying all of the time, I discovered a number of things I had not realized before. I became much more familiar with ways that my gun tends to shift and ride differently with different belts and different pants. I developed subtle ways of checking and adjusting the position of the gun with my elbow and realized that I needed more practice with a wider variety of concealment garments. I also became much more aware of the many roadblocks thrown up by hoplophobic politicians to discourage citizen carry.

I found that, even in gun-friendly Virginia, it is impossible to obey the law all of the time and still retain a reasonable level of basic safety, not to mention security.

It’s outrageous that politicians who have never handled guns dictate where I may and where I must not carry a gun and that they do so with no consideration of what happens to the gun while I am not carrying it, much less the inherent dangers of handling a loaded gun in public and in some cases having to unload it in order to remain in compliance with their ignorant rules.

After all of the work and concentration developing the comfort of skill at arms, it is decidedly uncomfortable to be disarmed.

• I don’t carry a gun because I’m looking for trouble. Because I carry a gun I keep a more wary eye out for trouble so I can better avoid it.
• I don’t carry a gun because I am fearful. What do I have to be afraid of, I’ve got a gun.
• I don’t carry a gun as my first response to trouble. I carry it as a last resort.

The real discomfort is knowing that in a worst-case situation when lives are in danger, if I have been disarmed, it is more likely that whatever remains as my last resort might not be good enough to effectively protect my family. That is a very discomforting feeling.

To receive The Firearms Coalition’s bi-monthly newsletter, The Knox Hard Corps Report, write to PO Box 3313, Manassas, VA 20108.

Copyright © 2010 Neal Knox Associates – The most trusted name in the rights movement.

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Washington, DC - -(AmmoLand.com)-  Oral arguments in the Supreme Court case of McDonald v. Chicago were an interesting show on March 2.

Most of the Justices made their positions on applying the Second Amendment to the states – and what mechanism to use to do it – fairly clear from the outset. Most observers agree that the Court will declare that states must recognize a fundamental right to keep and bear arms.

A secondary issue in this case is not just whether the Second Amendment should apply to the states, but also how it should get there. The 14th Amendment was written and ratified specifically for the purpose of, among other things, clarifying who is a citizen of the US and to make the rights of US citizenship applicable and enforceable in the states.

That intent was thwarted however by a Supreme Court dominated by Justices with a strong state autonomy philosophy. In a ruling known as the Slaughterhouse cases, the Court interpreted, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” to be limited in scope to only such rights or privileges as were bestowed by the Constitution, not those which pre-existed and were merely reiterated in that document.

In the 140 years since that egregious decision no Court has been willing to reverse their esteemed predecessors and open the Pandora’s Box of “unenumerated rights”. mentioned in the Constitution. Instead they created a novel construct around another clause of the 14th which says, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” They have used this clause to somehow selectively “incorporate” virtually all of the Bill of Rights. Now they are poised to do the same with the Second Amendment.

This controversy leads to much speculation about how the Court will split on this question. Roberts and Scalia very clearly want to incorporate under Due Process.

Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas are likely to join them, but some of them could come out with a partial dissent favoring application of the right by means of the Privileges or Immunities clause rather than the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment. Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor seemed resigned to the fact that incorporation is inevitable, but would clearly prefer to selectively apply some limited version of the Second Amendment with lots of room for restrictions. Stevens might be the lone holdout dissenting on the grounds that applying the Second Amendment in cities like Chicago will cost lives – as if guns are only used for crime.

After losing in the 7th Circuit and being granted a review by the SCOTUS, Alan Gura, attorney for Otis McDonald and the Second Amendment Foundation, decided to use the opportunity to try and restore the Privileges or Immunities clause to its proper place in constitutional law. Some didn’t like that idea and so the NRA elbowed their way into the case to have their attorney, former Solicitor General Paul Clement, argue for the more traditional Due Process incorporation.

Advertisement

During the oral arguments Gura and James Feldman, Special Counsel for Chicago were both rigorously questioned, almost badgered, by the Justices to the point that neither ever got more than a few words out before being interrupted again. The contrast between this and how the Justices handled Clement, was simply startling. Clement was able to breeze through his talking points with only a few, very cordial interruptions for polite, agreeable questions.

It was very clear that the Justices – at least the vocal ones – were downright hostile to the idea of overturning Slaughterhouse and most were equally hostile to the idea of not applying the Second to the states. It was also clear that these justices were predisposed to buy what Clement was selling. That had to be tough on Gura. This was his case from the beginning and he was very unhappy when NRA forced their way in and took one third of his argument time. Then to have their lawyer come out the heroes of the day while Gura’s arguments remained largely unuttered… It had to be frustrating, especially since Gura was planning all along to include Due Process in his arguments.

Since Clement came in, Gura had little choice but to concentrate virtually all of his time on the Privileges or Immunities argument.

In the end, it doesn’t matter how the right to arms is applied to the states so long as it is applied. Of course, winning this case is only the beginning. There will be multiple lawsuits over many years costing millions of dollars, and still the citizens of Chicago will probably have a difficult – if not impossible – time acquiring and maintaining legal handguns for self-defense in their homes – much less out in the wilds of the city streets.

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- The Supreme Court has concluded hearing oral arguments in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge to Chicago’s gun ban.

As expected, the Justices gave strong indications that they intend to “incorporate” the Second Amendment to apply it against the states and declare Chicago’s gun ban unconstitutional.

That will of course be followed by Chicago Mayor Daley trying to loosen the law to the absolute minimum for compliance with the Court’s order just like Washington, DC did.

I expect to see at least two more lawsuits against Chicago before an average citizen will be able to purchase and possess a handgun in their home. One of the big questions in this case is whether the Court will use the “privileges or immunities” clause or the “equal protection” ["due process."] clause to apply the Second Amendment to the states.

From their questions and comments, it sounded like they were not inclined to overturn previous bad precedents in order to use the “privileges or immunities” clause so it is likely they will stick with the tried and true (if somewhat convoluted) method of incorporation under the “equal protection” clause. None of that really matters as far as application of the Second Amendment is concerned though.

What really matters is whether the Justices include more superfluous BS in the decision like they did in Heller. Scalia’s assertions and assumptions in his written opinion in Heller have been predictably used to abuse the rights of gun owners. For now things look very good for a favorable ruling though. We can expect that to come out sometime in late June. As always, we’ll keep you posted.

We are still collecting and sharing information about NRA Director candidates over at www.GunVoter.org. If you have any information about any of the candidates we want to hear from you. Also, if you have any questions for or about the candidates, we’d like to see those posted as well. Of course we’re always interested in any information about candidates for public office at all levels. Remember that we are offering FREE YourName@GunVoter.org email addresses for active members of www.GunVoter.org. Stop by the site for details.

Please forward this article to everyone you know might be interested.

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(AmmoLand.com)- It is time again to elect one third of the absurdly large Board of Directors of NRA. Each year 25 seats come up for election for a 3-year term and then one of the runner-ups is elected to a 1-year term at the annual meetings. This year 24 of the current directors are running for reelection and there are 7 non-incumbent nominees also running resulting in 31 candidates for 25 seats.

As usual, the field includes a number of big names and celebrities, all of whom are certain to win. This category includes Bob Barr, Dave Butz, Richard Childress, Sandy Froman, Marion Hammer, Susan Howard, Karl Malone, Oliver North, Ted Nugent, and Don Young.

Normally Joaquin Jackson and Larry Craig would have made the shoo-in list, but Senator Craig’s highly publicized personal issues and Ranger Jackson’s televised comments suggesting that “assault rifles” should be restricted to 5 round capacity place their reelection in doubt. While both of these men have served well on the board and I consider both to be personal friends, I would have preferred it if they had stepped aside to give someone else a chance to serve.

Three others I think need to take a break are Donn DiBiasio, ,Robert Sanders, and Frank Bachhuber. Bachhuber declined to get involved in the David Olofson case even after I personally contacted him about it. I like Mr. Bachhuber and think he has done much good work on the Board, but I can’t support his reelection after he turned his back on Olofson in his home state.

DiBiasio and Sanders failed to make the cut last year, but Sanders was subsequently elected to the 76th Director position at the Annual Meeting while DiBiasio was moved into a seat vacated when another director resigned. I know little of Sanders, a former Treasury agent, but the silence around his name raises questions.

DiBiasio on the other hand is infamous for being cantankerous and territorial. Sources in his home state of Rhode Island report that he has blocked grassroots efforts that might challenge his preeminence there. I tried to give Mr. DiBiasio the benefit of the doubt until I overheard him badmouthing my father at a board meeting after Dad’s death.

The remaining 5 incumbents I’m leaving unendorsed are Joe Allbaugh, a Republican Party insider; Leo Holt, who should be, but is not known to Pennsylvania rights leaders; Lance Olson, who has been missing in action in Iowa for the past dozen years that he’s been on the board; James Porter who followed his father onto the Board and is now the Second Vice President; and Dwight Van Horn whom I simply don’t know.

On the other side of the ledger are four current directors whom I am supporting because I feel that they serve important roles on the Board. I am also endorsing all seven of the non-incumbent candidates, the six nominated by the Nominating Committee and the one nominated by petition only. Along with the other assets each brings to the table, they offer the added benefit of bringing new attitudes and ideas.

That makes a total of 11 candidates I am endorsing this year:

1. Carol Bambery – the hardest working member of the Board.
2. Tom King – a valuable and promising leader.
3. Cleta Mitchell – an expert on political laws.
4. Johnny Nugent – a true believer serving in the Indiana Senate.
5. Pete Brownell – the third generation of commitment to gun owners.
6. Ken Hanson – a very active attorney activist.
7. Carol Hallett – a well connected conservative.
8. Marion Townsend – representing muzzle loaders and more.
9. Steve Schreiner – an unrelenting Second Amendment advocate.
10. Graham Hill – hero of shooting programs for the disabled.
11. Matt Blunt – the well respected Ex-Governor of Missouri.

NRA members with at least 5 consecutive years of membership and Lifetime Members are eligible to vote and should have received a ballot in their most recent NRA magazine. Eligible voters can vote for up to 25 candidates, but ballots marked for fewer than 25 are valid and more powerful. I strongly encourage you to vote for only those eleven candidates I have endorsed or a subset of them and no more.

Of course, if you personally know any of the candidates and wish to support them, I fully respect your decision. In such a case, I hope you will take a moment to let me and others know what I’m missing by posting information in the NRA Board of Directors section of www.GunVoter.org. I also invite any of the candidates to post information about themselves and answer questions members might have in the www.GunVoter.org forums.

Typically fewer than 7% of eligible NRA members cast a ballot. That’s embarrassing. It’s your association – it’s your vote. Make it count.

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA, --(AmmoLand.com)- It’s been awhile since I have written an installment of my Effective Activist Politics series, but this is one of the most important topics for activists and activist organizations to pay attention to so I’m adding it to the series. If you’d like to read or re-read the other articles in the series they are available at www.FirearmsCoalition.org and also at www.GunVoter.org.

Every grass roots lobbying organization needs to schedule two strategic planning sessions every year. The output of one is a legislative plan, and the other is a political action plan.

The legislative session should be held after elections and before the legislature convenes. In most states, that will fall in December or January. The political action planning session should be held as soon after the legislature adjourns as possible.

Both planning sessions should include the organization’s leadership, key activists, representatives from other organizations, and trusted advisors. Active politicians and others with priorities other than gun rights should not be included in the core planning stage, but should be carefully included in appropriate areas of the action plan. Plans generated from both meetings need to be interwoven and complimentary because the bottom line of activist politics is the ability to impact elections. Politicians can dismiss letters, emails, faxes, and phone calls, but they cannot ignore votes. As my father was fond of saying, the one and only thing a politician needs to be successful is the ability to be elected. Without that a politician is not a politician at all. The best way to get a politician’s attention – and perhaps shift his position on a given issue – is to demonstrate the ability to impact his electability.

I’ll talk about strategic planning for elections in another article.

Here is a 10-step process for developing a legislative strategic plan:

1. Determine the Ultimate Objective of your organization. It is painfully obvious that many organizations – including major national organizations – have never actually done this. They tend to drift in a general direction rather than steaming toward a clear objective.
2. Develop a comprehensive inventory of current law and a prioritized list of changes you’d like to see. This is another frequently neglected but critical step, and once completed must be kept very confidential.
3. Analyze the political Big Picture. Who’s in power? Where is the pendulum? Which way is it moving? What external forces are in play? This can be easier to see from a distance so be sure to bring in some outside perspective here.
4. Evaluate each politician in your arena. Positions, philosophy, motivations, vulnerabilities, potential challengers, etc. Once this has been done once it is easier to keep up, but it still requires a lot of work. Knowing the strengths, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities of friends and foes alike is invaluable in both legislative and election planning.
5. Run scenarios. Challenge yourself and your brain-trust with “What ifs.” Use the conclusions from steps 1-4 to test possibilities and options.
6. Develop a general, “draft” strategy for the next two years.
7. Bring in fresh eyes and different perspectives. This is the time to bring in members of your Board of Directors, trusted political advisors, and strategists from other organizations.
8. Firm up a comprehensive strategy that utilizes all of the knowledge and tools at your disposal. Even if you and another group can’t agree on a mutual strategy, you can take their plans into account and play off of their actions to make your organization more effective.
9. Map out the tools, tactics, and timetable that you will employ to execute your strategy. Revisit the plan frequently through the year and never deviate from the plan without first revisiting the strategic process and reconciling the change to the overall strategy.
10. Rinse and repeat. Every year the process should be started over again. Every step should be revisited with an open mind and fresh eyes. Each strategic plan should cover at least two years, but the process should be started fresh every year with the previous year’s plan as nothing more than one of the ideas on the table.

The key to the process’ effectiveness is using a process. Whether your group adopts this 10-step plan or some other system for building a strategic plan, the important thing is to have a process and use it. Anything that helps to focus thought and attention on this critical, often neglected component of effective political activism is a good thing. While success can be achieved without such a planning process, it is far more likely to be achieved sooner if serious thought is given to these issues in advance.

If your organization needs help with planning or analysis, or would just like another perspective on some issue, give The Firearms Coalition a call. We’re here to help you succeed.

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

FirearmsCoalition.org

Manassas, VA --(AmmoLand.com)- In politics, like baseball, there is a time to bunt and a time to swing for the fence.

This year is ripe for home runs. The political climate this year offers a unique opportunity for rights advocates to make major gains – both legislatively and politically.

To make those gains we need to pull out all of the stops and go big.

The election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts was clear proof that voters are unhappy. Politicians who were already concerned about disgruntled voters are now terrified as they look toward the November elections. Pundits and analysts can spin the Brown victory any way they wish but the facts are clear.

Voters are not happy with the way Democrats have exercised control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency. The backlash won’t stop at congressional elections and the local politicians know it. Many state legislators rode the wave of Democrat ascendancy to gain control of their state legislatures and as they watch that wave crashing on the rocks, they know they have a serious fight on the way this November.

Rights groups go to great lengths to maintain a non-partisan position, supporting and endorsing candidates based on their positions rather than their party affiliation. But the fact is that the official position of the Democrats is to restrict firearms while the official position of the Republican Party is to support individual gun rights. That means that Democrats being in trouble is good news to the rights movement. The trend is anti-incumbent with an emphasis on Democrats so all of those politicians coming up for reelection, regardless of party affiliation, are desperate to make friends and avoid stirring up enemies.

What this means for grass roots rights activists is unprecedented influence. Few issues can stir up more voters than the gun issue – and unlike most other hot-button issues, only one side of the gun issue can deliver large numbers of voters – our side. In 2004 the Democrats downplayed “gun control” for the first time since the assassination of NRA Life Member John F. Kennedy. Since the Kerry run for the presidency, Democrats have carefully tiptoed around the gun issue, offering lip-service to both sides of the fight, declaring support for the Second Amendment, and using back-room deals and parliamentary tricks to quietly sideline all but the most innocuous gun bills. The strategy has worked well, effectively neutering pro-rights forces by lulling GunVoters to sleep. Well GunVoters are not asleep this year, but without clear votes on major, well publicized gun legislation – either pro or anti – there will be little to energize and activate them leading into the November elections.

2010 is the year to change the trend.
With politicians scrambling for support wherever they can find it, rights activists are finding a warmer reception in more political offices than ever before. Republicans are ready to actively back much stronger pro-rights legislation than they have been willing to support in the past and pro-rights Democrats are more willing to demand that their party leaders give them an opportunity to go on the record with pro-rights votes they can use to bolster their support with the GunVoters back home.

This is a strategic opportunity. This is the year to introduce and force record votes on bold pro-rights legislation. In this environment, getting critical votes is more likely than in recent years and the chances of passage are as good as anyone has ever seen. But the real beauty is that even if pro-rights legislation fails, as long as we get the record vote, we win!

Having a clear record vote on a strong, widely supported rights bill provides ammunition needed to stir up our troops and get them involved in working to defeat those who voted against us. It allows GunVoters to take credit when those politicians are replaced by new folks who are more rights-friendly. A new legislature with new leadership and a bunch of new politicians who owe a debt of gratitude to GunVoters is unlikely to take a chance on offending that important support base when the same (or an even better) pro-rights bill is introduced next year.

The bases are loaded and we have players in the outfield who have bet heavily on our team. This is a game-changer moment. It’s not a time to bunt. We need to swing for the fences. Taking an easy single – getting some marginal tweak to bad legislation – might be an easy score, but it would also give cover to the enemies of the Second Amendment. Now is not the time for timid, baby-step proposals. 2010 should be a year of rights activists swinging for the fences in every state legislature in the country.

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