Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea

USA --(Ammoland.com)- “As one of the thirteen original colonies, North Carolina maintains the moral and legal concept that the right to keep and bear sporting arms is one of the fundamental privileges granted by our American Democracy,” North Carolina Governor Terry Sanford informed GUNS Magazine when asked for a public comment on his stance on the issue.

“This privilege should be infringed upon only when deemed necessary, through the will of the people in a democratic action, to insure public safety or to prescribe the manner of taking game,” he continued. “We do not anticipate any legislation abrogating these premises.”

No, but anticipate it or not, defining a fundamental right as a granted privilege subject to majority consensus on something as nebulous as “public safety” opens the door for literally anything those who want to abridge those rights can think up and manipulate public opinion on. Presumably, Gov. Sanford would also have no objection if enough voters could be bamboozled into backing a state-imposed religion or no religion at all, or prohibitions on free speech, or the lifting of them on warrantless searches or cruel and unusual punishment…

But wait a second: Terry Sanford? North Carolina’s governor is Bev Perdue. Sanford gave up that office back in ’65.

Continue reading on Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/nc-governor-right-to-sporting-arms-a-privilege-granted-by-democracy

About David Codrea:
David Codrea is a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He is a field editor for GUNS Magazine, and a blogger at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance. Read more at www.DavidCodrea.com.

Texas Upholds the 2nd Amendment or Does it?

AmmoLand Gun News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2nd Amendment is My Concealed Carry Permit

AmmoLand Gun News

Washington DC - -(Ammoland.com)- When Obama was running for president in 2008, he promised to “fundamentally change America” – a phrase which lucid Americans took as meaning he was going to bring his leftist agenda to bear on us all.

And if Obama has had any success as president, it’s certainly been his success in changing us fundamentally from a nation under law to a nation that often looks lawless. From a nation in which one feels secure into a nation in which more and more people are feeling that their security is in their own hands (literally). And this has led not only to record breaking gun sales since Obama’s election, but also to changes in state laws around the country to make it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun for their own protection.

As a result of this, Wisconsin, which was one of the few states to not have some form of concealed carry law within its borders, now has one thanks to their much maligned Republican legislature and Gov. Scott Walker. With the stroke of a pen in July of 2011, Walker made Wisconsin the 49th state in the union to allow the concealed carry of handguns. (Only Illinois, Obama’s old stomping ground, continues to deny its citizens this option right.)

Costitutional Carry
And while I don’t want to take away from what Walker has accomplished in Wisconsin, during the last few years the momentum has shifted from seeking to allow licensed citizens to carry concealed handguns to allowing all citizens without a felony in their criminal record or mental health problems to carry concealed without a license or a permit. In other words, the growing push abroad is to recognize the 2nd Amendment as a sufficient permit for concealed carry and go from there.

After all, the 2nd Amendment does say we have the right not only to keep but also to bear arms.

Arizona’s Gov. Jan Brewer espoused this view on April 16, 2010, when she signed legislation recognizing the right for Arizonans to carry a concealed handgun without a permit.

Said Brewer upon signing the legislation: “This legislation not only protects the Second Amendment rights of Arizona citizens, but restores those rights as well.”

At the time, Arizona joined Vermont and Alaska as the only states recognizing what many have come to refer to as “Constitutional Carry”: so named because the foundation of the right to bear arms is spelled out in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. But since Arizona took that step, Wyoming has followed suit and Kentucky state legislator Mike Harmon has been pushing for Constitutional Carry in the Bluegrass State as well. Moreover, there have been similar bills put forward in at least six other states.

America has a gun culture, which historically speaking, is closely intertwined with our recognition of the God-given duty to preserve our own lives and our own liberty. And as it seems that more and more citizens are realizing this, perhaps we’ll be fortunate enough to see more and more states follow Alaska, Vermont, Arizona, and Wyoming down the path that recognizes not only our right to keep arms, but our right to bear them without infringement as well.

As Ted Nugent put it: “The 2nd Amendment is my concealed carry permit.”

AWR Hawkins

About:
AWR Hawkins writes for all the BIG sites, for Pajamas Media, for RedCounty.com, for Townhall.com and now AmmoLand Shooting Sports News.

His southern drawl is frequently heard discussing his take on current events on radio shows like America’s Morning News, the G. Gordon Liddy Show, the Ken Pittman Show, and the NRA’s Cam & Company, among others. He was a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal (summer 2010), and he holds a PhD in military history from Texas Tech University.

If you have questions or comments, email him at awr@awrhawkins.com. You can find him on facebook at www.facebook.com/awr.hawkins.

Can the 2nd Amendment Survive Four More Years of Obama?

AmmoLand Gun News

Washington DC - -(Ammoland.com)- A politician is described as a “lame duck” once he or she has been defeated or announced their retirement, and is simply finishing out the remainder of their term in office.

And even after Nov. elections are over and a large number of Senate and House members are voted out, the lame duck Senators and House members are usually just that – lame.

But occasionally, they are fierce because the defeated office holder is bitter and has approximately two months to wreak havoc with his or her vote before leaving DC.

When this happens, ideologues will use the time where they’re completely accountable to voters to score points for their side. We saw this after the Nov. 2010 elections when defeated Senators and House members banded together in late Dec. to repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” so homosexuals could serve openly in the military. Yet as bad as this is, the opportunities for a lame duck office holder to attack our freedom grows exponentially when said office holder is in the White House, and when he’s an ideologue who hates private gun ownership, the right to self defense, and the 2nd Amendment.

And this brings us to a crucial point. Namely, that if Obama wins re-election in 2012, he will be awarded four years of lame duck status in which to do anything and everything he wants to lessen our ability to own and use guns.

He knows he won’t have to answer for it because he will not be running for re-election in 2016.

What would four years of a lame duck President Obama mean for gun owners?
The only way to know is to gauge it by the things Obama has done already. In 1995, when pursuing a state level office in Illinois, Obama “endorsed a complete ban on all handguns.” At that time, he also expressed his support for waiting periods for handgun purchases. A “waiting period” is a set period of time, usually 5 to 10 days, which has to elapse between the time an individual buys a gun and is actually allowed to take it home. In other words, customer “X” would pay for a gun on Monday of this week, but would not be allowed to pick it up at the store until Monday of next week.

(The foolishness of this scenario is evident when one considers what that waiting period might mean for a female who is being threatened by a violent criminal or sexual predator. She would have to buy her gun then spend the next week, the “waiting period,” hoping the criminal or predator would be willing to wait a week before attacking as well.)[or conversely the gun owner that already has been background checked and finger printed for multiple gun purchases in the past and now has to "cool off" for 10 days to own another gun]

As a state senator in Illinois, Obama supported a ban on the use of handguns for self defense: he literally supported laws that made it a crime to use a gun to defend yourself even if you did so in your own home. He also supported Illinois H.B. 2579, which prohibited law-abiding individuals from purchasing more than one gun a month; he opposed laws that permitted law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense (i.e., he opposed concealed carry permits); he supported a ban on “junk guns” (cheaper guns that poor people could actually afford to buy and use for self defense). And as a U.S. Senator, Obama supported the reintroduction of the assault weapons ban, a ban on high capacity magazines, and he voted with Ted Kennedy on ammunition bans (that included hunting ammunition).

Add to these things Obama’s assurances to his ardent followers that he’s working “under the radar” to pass more gun control and four years of lame duck status for him should make every gun owner nervous as a cat.

While I don’t pretend to know what working for more gun control “under the radar” means, I do know that there’s no limit to the damage that can be done by a man who hates guns, freedom, and the constitution as much as Obama does. (Especially if he knows he doesn’t have to answer to voters again.)

AWR Hawkins

About:
AWR Hawkins writes for all the BIG sites, for Pajamas Media, for RedCounty.com, for Townhall.com and now AmmoLand Shooting Sports News.

His southern drawl is frequently heard discussing his take on current events on radio shows like America’s Morning News, the G. Gordon Liddy Show, the Ken Pittman Show, and the NRA’s Cam & Company, among others. He was a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal (summer 2010), and he holds a PhD in military history from Texas Tech University.

If you have questions or comments, email him at awr@awrhawkins.com. You can find him on facebook at www.facebook.com/awr.hawkins.

Constitution Party of Wisconsin

Wisconsin --(Ammoland.com)- On July 26, 1953 “Fidel Castro”Ruiz tried to take over Cuba.

His first effort failed, so he launched a 5 year plan of coalition building and logistics.

On March 17, 1958 Castro declared “total war” on the government of Fulgencio Batista y Zaldivar. On January 1, 1959 Batista resigned and fled Cuba. Upon the success of that goal, he turned around and asked his allies to turn in their weapons. He put the question this way, “Armas para que?” or “Arms for what?”

It took two years to disarm his former allies. In 1961 Castro announced, “I am a Marxist-Leninist.”

Then he asked the question, “Elections for what?” He then enslaved the Cuban people, turning that nation into an island prison.

The Constitution Party of Wisconsin (CPoW) has an answer for “Arms for what?” Given the sinful nature of man, no one individual or group of individuals should have a monopoly on power. Constitution Party of Wisconsin supports our Republic, with constitutional checks and balances, including the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. The Second Amendment prohibits any interference with gun ownership by saying: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Constitution Party of Wisconsin has several reasons for gun ownership.

1. It is your Constitutional Right. Our Platform States: “The right to bear arms is inherent in the right of self defense, defense of the family, and defense against tyranny, conferred on the individual and the community by our Creator to safeguard life, liberty, and property, as well as to help preserve the independence of the nation. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution; it may not properly be infringed upon or denied.” CPoW defines Constitutional Carry, as no restrictions, no taxes, and no prior permission from any level of government. It is a Right, not a privilege. The CPoW platform further states, “The Constitution Party upholds the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms. We oppose attempts to prohibit ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens, and stand against all laws which would require the registration of guns or ammunition.”
2. A well used firearm is an excellent way to fend off criminals. A firearm is the only equalizer that gives an elderly man or woman a chance against street gangs, thugs, rioters, rapists and murderers. Our Platform states; “We emphasize that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them. In such circumstances, the peaceful citizen’s protection against the criminal would be seriously jeopardized.”
3. Constitution Party of Wisconsin supports property ownership, including the Castle Doctrine. The homeowner has the God-given Right to defend his home against theft, invasion, and murder: to “safeguard life, liberty, and property.” “If a thief be found breaking up, and he be smitten that he die, there shall be no blood shed for him.” Exodus 22:2 The next verse does say, if it is daytime, and you can see he is stealing, then he ought not be killed, but forced to pay restitution by the judges. The security of home is what is being emphasized, not the well-being of a criminal.
4. Most importantly, the citizen needs to bear arms to defend against tyranny. People under NAZI rule were crying out for rifles. People wanted a fighting chance, after realizing that appeasement forged their chains. Our Platform further states, “We call for the repeal of all federal firearms legislation, beginning with the Federal Firearms Act of 1968.” That Act mirrors the NAZI Firearms Act of 1938, which disarmed the German citizen. Constitution Party of Wisconsin opposes all acts of disarmament, “We call for the rescinding of all executive orders, the prohibition of any future executive orders, and the prohibition of treaty ratification which would in any way limit the right to keep and bear arms.”

Constitution Party of Wisconsin affirms that an armed citizen is a mark of a free nation. The armed citizen is part of America’s defense. America has outstanding Armed Forces, but they are deployed around the world.

Any enemy would find 300,000,000 armed citizens a deterrent, no matter what they say. Constitutional Carry is the way to go. Registries only serve as tools for rogue governments to disarm the citizenry. That begs the question, If a civil government is honest, then why does it insist on rendering innocent people helpless? Why does it insist on taking away the Nation’s homedefense?

Riley J. Hood is the Chairman of the Constitution Party of Wisconsin. To learn more, visit constitutionpartywi.com

About:
The Constitution Party of Wisconsin is a Political Party that seeks to put men of integrity into Partisan, Non-Partisan, and appointed positions of Authority. We are working to implement the Biblical Principles of Civil Government, as laid out in The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Visit: www.constitutionpartywi.com

Calguns Foundation - 2011 Year in Review

Calguns Foundation

California --(Ammoland.com)- I know that our fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is important to you.

This individual liberty ensures that we have an opportunity to protect our lives and those of our loved ones should the need arise. We Californians are all too aware of the many infringements of this enumerated right that regular, law-abiding people like us face on a daily basis, yet it’s for this very reason the road to freedom runs through the Golden State.

2011 was a notable year for gun rights and our culture of respect for the constitution. Over the past twelve months we’ve made some significant advancements in Second Amendment issues and taken major steps forward in our fight for this critical civil right, including:

• Taking the federal carry case of Richards v. Prieto to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to strike the “good cause” and “good moral character” prior restraints in California law and secure the People’s right to bear loaded firearms in public for self-defense on a “shall issue” basis (brought by attorneys Alan Gura and Donald Kilmer);
• Filing a lawsuit in federal court challenging as unconstitutional California’s “Assault Weapons” ban on common semi-automatic firearms, as well as Penal Code Section 12031 “(e) checks” (Richards v. Harris brought by attorneys Jason Davis and Donald Kilmer);
• Filing a federal civil rights case against Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith for violating Mr. Tom Scocca’s constitutional right to equal protection of the laws by denying him a firearms carry license while approving others (brought by attorneys Donald Kilmer and Jason Davis);
• Supporting the long-running federal lawsuit Nordyke v. King as it heads back to an “en banc” (full court) panel in March, 2012 (brought by attorneys Donald Kilmer and Don B. Kates);
• Winning the important carry license records case Calguns Foundation v. Ventura County Sheriff Bob Brooks, et al., and receiving $21,000 in court-ordered attorney fees (brought by attorney Jason Davis);
• Creating and publishing the CGF Carry License Model Policy for law enforcement agencies;
• Partnering with new Ventura County Sheriff Geoff Dean and his staff to create a vastly improved carry license policy and process, as well as the near-total adoption of the CGF Model Policy;
• Forcing the Los Angeles District Attorney to dismiss false charges against a law-abiding person properly carrying an exposed firearm (defense by Jason Davis funded by CGF);
• Causing San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey to follow the law and establish a written carry license policy;
• Filing a lawsuit against Merced County Sheriff Mark Pazin and the County of Merced over unlawful carry license policies (Rossow v. Merced brought by attorneys Jason Davis and Donald Kilmer);
• Acquiring up-to-date statewide statistics on carry licenses from CA DOJ and publishing a comprehensive report down to the licensing authority level of detail;
• Filing a lawsuit against the County of San Mateo over its pre-empted ban on the carry of firearms in parks (Early v. San Mateo County brought by attorney Donald Kilmer);
• Numerous direct and indirect criminal defenses of innocent Californians;
• And many, many more.

While this isn’t anything nearing an exhaustive list of our efforts over the last year, we hope you’ll see why we’re excited about the future and how your generous donations have gone directly to the front lines of Second Amendment advocacy.

For more on these and other CGF cases, see our Litigation Past and Present Wiki page. 2012 will be full of new lawsuits, grassroots actions, and education campaigns to advance our rights, so be sure to sign up at our website and check back often for news and updates.

We’ve made it easier than ever to make a fully tax-deductible donation to CGF and hope you’ll include us in your charitable giving. To contribute by check or credit card on a one-time or (hopefully!) recurring basis, please use our secure website donations page, also linked at at www.calgunsfoundation.org/donate. (If you’re interested in sponsoring the Carry License Sunshine & Compliance Initiative and supporting our efforts to reform carry license policies in your county and across the state, please visit the Sponsorships section of the new CGF Store.)

Another exciting and easy way for you to contribute to CGF is to shop at Amazon… that’s right, just by making your purchases at Amazon.com through our convenient direct link, up to 15% of the total purchase will be sent directly to CGF! Please do share this email with your friends, family, and fellow gun rights supporters; we’re counting on you to get the word out that California gun owners have every reason to be optimistic about the future of our rights.

Advancing the Second Amendment and keeping government accountable to the People is a full-time job. With your help and support, 2012 can indeed be a monumental year for the right to keep and bear arms. Happy holidays, and best wishes to you and yours.

The Calguns Foundation (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization which serves its members and the general public by providing Second Amendment-related education, strategic litigation and the defense of innocent California gun owners from improper or malicious prosecution. The Calguns Foundation seeks to inform government and protect the rights of individuals to acquire, own, and lawfully use firearms in California.

Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea

USA --(Ammoland.com)- “The American Revolutionary Era Origin of the Second Amendment’s Clauses, my recently published article in the JOURNAL ON FIREARMS & PUBLIC POLICY, Volume 23 (2011), is now available online,” author David E. Young advises Gun Rights Examiner in a December 23 email.

Young, the subject of a WarOnGuns interview in May, 2008, is the author of The Origin of the Second Amendment and The Founders’ View of the Right to Bear Arms, and is a leading and acknowledged authority on the subject: His work was cited in DC v Hellerby Justice Scalia in the majority ruling that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right.”

Continue reading on Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/journal-links-second-amendment-to-state-bills-of-rights

About David Codrea:
David Codrea is a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He is a field editor for GUNS Magazine, and a blogger at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance. Read more at www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/david-codrea

KnifeRights.org

Gilbert, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- The hearing in Boston last Friday on the proposed anti-knife ordinance “Providing For The Licensing Of Stores That Sell Certain Knives” was a TOTAL FARCE!

We’ve coined the term “knife bigots” to describe these councilors, and others, who simply hate our freedom and our tools and staged this farciful hearing as part of their effort to railroad through this ordinance.

The only councilors at the hearing were the ordinance’s sponsors.

To spare you the agony of listening to the entire hour and 49-minute long low-quality video (can be viewed at http://1.usa.gov/sCvC13), we’ve put together an “entertaining” summary video with highlights and some commentary. This should give you some insight into their skewed view of knives and our rights. Click the image below to view the video.

Please pass along this article link or the video to your knife owner friends. This is how they view knives overseas and why we formed Knife Rights to prevent this from happening in America.

This is the Anti’s vision for knife owners in America, if we do not oppose them at every turn.

Todd Rathner, Knife Rights Legislative Director, led off the testimony opposing the ordinance, with supporting testimony from Jim Wallace of Gun Owner’s Action League (GOAL), the NRA’s Massachusetts affiliate, and a statement from American Knife & Tool Institute read by an AKTI representative. You can read Knife Rights’ official submitted testimony at www.KnifeRights.org/Boston_Statement_11-18-2011.pdf . Todd’s actual testimony was somewhat different as he responded to the preceding testimony by the Councilors and their witnesses.

Watch the video above and hear some of their more outrageous comments, such as, “No law is too onerous…when it comes to the sale of these weapons.” At one point, Councilor Michael Ross appears to be encouraging lawsuits against knife manufacturers for the illegal knife sales made by some convenience stores!

The knives that the Boston City Council is hoping to control will still be available outside city limits, over the internet, and at stores not covered by the ordinance as well as many other places. And, let us not forget the ubiquitous availability of kitchen knives in every household. The ordinance will only result in the hindrance of law-abiding citizens and penalizing honest business owners.

Please contact your Councilor IMMEDIATELY and POLITELY express your opposition to this unnecessary and discriminatory proposal: www.cityofboston.gov/citycouncil/councillors or you can call 617-635-4500 and ask for your Councilor. Additionally, you can email Mayor Tom Mennio at mayor@cityofboston.gov or call his office at 617-635-4500.

Additional details on this ordnance at: http://bit.ly/vtymHc

(Thanks to Knife Rights supporter Adam Francis of Equip 2 Endure for putting together this video.)

About:
Knife Rights (www.KnifeRights.org) is America’s Grassroots Knife Owners Organization, working towards a Sharper Future for all knife owners. Knife Rights is dedicated to providing knife owners an effective voice in public policy. Become a Knife Rights member and make a contribution to support the fight for your knife rights. Visit www.kniferights.org

American Knife & Tool Institute

WASHINGTON, DC --(Ammoland.com)- A public hearing is scheduled by the Boston City Council for Friday, November 18, 2011 and AKTI will have representatives there to attend and provide expert testimony against a proposal that would require convenience stores that sell knives to obtain a license.

While new language to the current proposal is expected prior to the meeting, it is anticipated to still target convenience stores in an effort that Boston City Council members mistakenly believe would improve public safety.

“AKTI is aggressively fighting this proposal, but we need help getting word out to the small convenience store owners about this proposed restriction and potential penalty for not complying,” noted Jan Billeb, AKTI Executive Director, “and to individuals that their ability to purchase a knife where they prefer could be affected.”

AKTI is asking people in Boston to contact their City Councilperson (617) 635-4500 and Mayor Menino’s Office (617) 635-4500 and voice their concerns. Anyone that sells knives in the city of Boston, does business in Boston, or is a concerned Bostonian should make that call TODAY.

AKTI’s Position:
Based on the current language of the proposal before the Boston City Council, the American Knife and Tool Institute is opposed to and does not see that any changes could improve the proposal to a point that it would not continue to have an adverse impact on its members and those entities that its members do business with as well as individuals who desire to purchase knives legally.

Our members produce quality safe products that are part of daily life of people all throughout the world. These products are responsibly sold and purchased at many different retail outlets or through dealers.

AKTI and its members believe that the current regulations around the sale of knives go above and beyond what is needed in the City of Boston. AKTI does not in any way support or endorse the illegal sale of knives or any illegal use of a knife or tool under current law in the City of Boston.

Background information on the Boston situation is available on the AKTI website at AKTI Heads to Boston Again.

This is the second time that AKTI has gone to battle in Boston for the knife community. Details about the 2001 effort to restrict knife carry can be found in the News & Updates section at www.AKTI.org.

KnifeRights.org

Gilbert, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- Knife Rights filed its response to NYC District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr’s Motion to Dismiss in our Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit against New York City and DA Vance.

The DA’s motion was expected and is pro forma in a case such as this. The Knife Rights legal team, led by attorney David Jensen, have done an exemplary job blowing the DA’s arrogant, ill-conceived and baseless motion to pieces.

To quote from the introduction: “Defendant District Attorney Vance (the “DA” or “DA Vance”) seeks to dismiss the Complaint for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. However, Plaintiffs clearly have standing because the DA’s actions result in substantial impairments to Knife Rights’ resources, and also because they impact the individual Plaintiffs’ ability to purchase lawful knives.

Moreover, the Complaint plainly states a claim, and consideration of the merits (as the DA implores) shows that the “standard” that Defendants use to apply the State laws at issue to common folding knives is wholly subjective and indeterminate. It is literally possible for one knife to be simultaneous legal and illegal, and a person has no means of conforming his or her conduct to the law’s expectations. While the DA’s motion necessarily fails because it relies on selectively construing the facts in the DA’s favor, rather than in the Plaintiffs’ favor (as Rule 12(b)(6) mandates), a consideration of the merits shows how far off the mark the DA’s self-serving characterizations are.”

The two documents make for interesting reading, if you are so inclined.

• Knife Rights Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
  
• DA Vance’s Motion to Dismiss

Bear in mind that each side is limited to 25 double-spaced pages in the body of the document, and the manner of doing so is strictly prescribed in many respects, so crafting a response is a challenge when there is so much that could be said, but only limited space to say it. A special thanks to those companies who have been major donors to the Sharper Future Legal Fund and who also submitted declarations in support of Knife Rights’ standing as a plaintiff: Benchmade, Columbia River Knife & Tool, KA-BAR, KnifeWorks and Taylor Brands.

This is but the first step in the first round. There is a whole river of water to pass under this bridge and many hearings to be held as this lawsuit slowly works its way through the process. You can help support this effort to protect our rights with a tax-deductible contribution to the Sharper Future Legal Fund.

If you are arrested for possession of an “illegal knife” in New York, please contact Knife Rights at: nycity@KnifeRights.org

About:
Knife Rights (www.KnifeRights.org) is America’s Grassroots Knife Owners Organization, working towards a Sharper Future for all knife owners. Knife Rights is dedicated to providing knife owners an effective voice in public policy. Become a Knife Rights member and make a contribution to support the fight for your knife rights. Visit www.kniferights.org

Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- According to Forbes Magazine, there are 397 BILLIONAIRES in America now.

A billion dollars is ONE THOUSAND MILLION DOLLARS. Chew on that for just a moment. Few of us can even fathom the sum.

Go here to see the list: http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/

Gun prohibitionist George Soros made #7. The Walton Family (Walmart) made #9, #10, and #11. Yes, Walmart sells rifles and ammo, but is also a major contributor to the lying cabal of authoritarian elitists knows as “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” (MAIG), an organization which is completely controlled by billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg of NYC. Bloomberg drops in at #12 on the American billionaire list.

We don’t know who else on the entire list of 397 American billionaires might be as grotesquely entrenched against an armed American citizenry as Soros or Bloomberg, but you can bet there’s plenty of “quiet money” fueling the “gun control” movement in this nation.

For instance: Warren Buffet is pals with Obama. Where do you think Buffet’s sentiments lie?

On the other side, two notorious conservative billionaires jump right out at you from the list: the Koch Brothers. Charles and David Koch share the #4 slot. If these two fellows are supporting efforts to restore the Second Amendment, that’s great. I hope they are writing huge checks. If they, or any other honestly pro-American ultra rich, are not spending big on protecting our right to keep and bear arms, they should be ashamed.

One wonders if these billionaires (left or right leaning) really think that if America falls into tyranny some day, they will be left with their vast holdings in Aspen, or that mansion in Hollywood will really be a very safe place. One wonders if these people get the “big picture”, i.e. the kind of world their children, grand children, and great grand children will grow up in.

But do American billionaires understand something else? A key point is that wealth only truly has a rational, tangible context within personal freedom … both yours and the next guy’s. What many of these American ultra rich don’t seem to get is that their freedom is because they live in a mostly free country.

Some of them might think that they could do it Idi Amin style, simply ignoring the bone crushing poverty and corruption in the rest of the nation. In a list of the nearly four hundred American billionaires, there are probably a couple who are that morally depraved. But the vast majority of billionaires who earned their own money must be more far-sighted than the average bear.

Self made billionaires see trends. They sense the tides changing before they actually do. They seem to be able to smell financial smoke from upwind. Friends, these are not stupid people we are talking about here. You can call them anything in the dictionary, but not stupid. You cannot acquire a BILLION dollars by being stupid.

But you can be a billionaire and lack wisdom. Gaining wisdom includes a few reality checks from our nation’s billionaires.

If this nation became a police state:

1. You will still be recognized. Your mug shots are in Forbes Magazine and on the internet.
2. You cannot hide. At any given time, a hundred people you employ know exactly where you are.
3. The government you may have been bribing and manipulating for decades just decides to take your money. Happens all the time.
4. Your bodyguards (or private army) might wonder why they settle for a pay check when they can just shoot you and take it all.

No, a wise American billionaire will realize that his or her wealth must live and grow in freedom based soil. That means defending the Bill of Rights. That means funding those people who, for years have proven they have their hearts and minds in the battle, in this case the battle to restore and then preserve the Second Amendment, the very Guardian of the Bill of Rights.

A recent Gallup poll found that FORTY PERCENT of Americans admitted to owning a gun. You know that at least ten percent actually own a gun and thought best to keep the fact private. HALF OF AMERICA owns guns. So, you ultra wealthy out there, give big, make a big deal about it, give to restore the Second Amendment. Because, if the balloon ever does go up, if you’ve stood with us, we’ll stand with you. In the final analysis it’s just enlightened self interest. I’m sure you know what that means.

Frequent JPFO contributor and strategist, Kirby Ferris, collaborated intensively with Aaron Zelman over the last two years of Aaron’s life. Ferris is currently the Operations Manager of JPFO.

See all of Kirby Ferris’ articles.

About:
Jews For The Preservation Of Firearms Ownership Mission is to destroy “gun control” and to encourage Americans to understand and defend all of the Bill of Rights for everyone. Those are the twin goals of Wisconsin-based Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO). Founded by Jews and initially aimed at educating the Jewish community about the historical evils that Jews have suffered when they have been disarmed, JPFO has always welcomed persons of all religious beliefs who share a common goal of opposing and reversing victim disarmament policies while advancing liberty for all.

JPFO is a non-profit tax-exempt educational civil rights organization, not a lobby. JPFO’s products and programs reach out to as many segments of the American people as possible, using bold tactics without compromise on fundamental principles. Visit www.JPFO.org – Copyright JPFO 2011

NRA News

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

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

Read More on these topics:

Cam Edwards talks to Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) about the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act.

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.

• Rep. Rehberg’s Legislation Protects Veterans’ Second Amendment
• Measure to Protect Second Amendment Rights for Vets Clears
• Senators Burr & Webb Introduce Veterans Second Amendment

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

KnifeRights.org

Gilbert, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- We might wish it were just a silly Halloween prank, but these politicians are serious, and that makes it a scary issue.

This proposal to license so-called “convenience stores” in order to be able to sell knives two-inches and longer doesn’t accomplish anything but to cost businesses additional hassle and money, which might well succeed in their ultimate goal of making it impossible for law-abiding citizens to buy a knife at their local convenience store.

That is discriminatory against both citizens and these businesses. These businesses may well decide it is too much trouble and expense to bother with knives anymore, which is obviously what these politicians want. But, this will not make a dent in crime or violence, their supposed excuse for this stupidity. This proposal is wrong on so many levels. You can review the poorly conceived and drafted proposed ordinance here: www.kniferights.org/BostonOrdinance.pdf. Try not to choke upon reading it.

You can pretty much guarantee that when politicians are talking about blaming inanimate objects for crime, that it is only the honest citizens and businesses that will be impacted by their proposed solution. Nobody wanting a knife will have much difficulty buying one someplace else, either at non-convenience (inconvenient?) stores, because most other stores except ill-defined “convenience” stores are exempted from this licensing (or perhaps not), or via the internet or from a somewhat less convenient convenience store across the city line. I recall living in a dry town some years ago. It was easy to find the town line; you just looked for the liquor stores with the big parking lots. No matter what these politicians do, they cannot and will not stop knives from being sold to those who might use them in criminal activity and no regulation of knife sales will stop violence.

Boston code already restricts sales of knives over two-inches long to minors and these, like all retailers, already must be licensed to do business in the city. Knife Rights continues to lead the fight against this absurd and unnecessary proposal. Our lobbyist is working hard to prevent what has happened with guns in Boston to be repeated with knives.

When Knife Rights stands up against an anti-knife proposal like this, even if it is not in your backyard, we need your support because if we lose, then we all lose, and when we win, we all win. No matter the result, the other side has to understand there will be no more easy rides when they try to take away our knives and our rights. Standing up for our rights does not come free, please consider donating to help pay for this effort. We need your donations and we need your voice to be heard by the Mayor and City Council of Boston.

If you are a Boston citizen, now it time to contact your Councilor and POLITELY express your opposition to this unnecessary and discriminatory proposal: www.cityofboston.gov/citycouncil/councillors or you can call 617-635-4500 and ask for your Councilor. Additionally, you can email Mayor Tom Mennio at mayor@cityofboston.gov or call his office at 617-635-4500.

About:
Knife Rights (www.KnifeRights.org) is America’s Grassroots Knife Owners Organization, working towards a Sharper Future for all knife owners. Knife Rights is dedicated to providing knife owners an effective voice in public policy. Become a Knife Rights member and make a contribution to support the fight for your knife rights. Visit www.kniferights.org

KnifeRights.org

Gilbert, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- It still isn’t safe for honest law-abiding citizens with a perfectly legal knife in their pocket to walk the streets of New York City, or take the subway.

Knife Rights’ legal team continues to help new clients who have been arrested and continues to get their cases dismissed, the latest just last week.

But, that still leaves these victims of NYC District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr’s persecution out of pocket a good deal of money, their valuable time (to say nothing of sleepless nights) and the persecution continues.

That’s why we filed a Federal Civil Rights lawsuit back in June.

Knife Rights’ lawsuit against DA Vance and the City of New York continues to move forward. The State of New York has been dropped as a defendant after it determined that the events occurring in New York City are strictly a New York City issue, rather than an issue of state law. That is good for us.

Recently, the City filed its response to our Complaint, and as expected, DA Vance filed a motion to dismiss the suit. We are presently working to respond to the DA’s motion.

The City does not appear to dispute the lawsuit’s basic claim that NYPD officers are using New York’s “gravity knife” law to prosecute possession of common and ordinary folding knives. As anticipated, it appears that both the City and the DA intend to argue that the “gravity knife” law encompasses one-hand-opening and assisted-opening folding knives, and hence, that the law is not “impermissibly vague” as we claim. That circular argument is no surprise; after all, that’s the root of the lawsuit and those are the issues we are prepared to go to trial on.

A magistrate judge has been assigned, which will help move things along quicker (that being a relative term considering this is federal litigation) and Judge Ellis has scheduled a court conference for early November. We are hopeful that we will be able to begin discovery from the City and DA Vance after this conference. No doubt there will be potholes aplenty along this road, but that’s how it works when you go toe to toe with one of the most powerful cities and DA in the country. We’re up to the fight.

In the meantime, never carry your knife clipped to your pocket in New York City. Even when covered by a jacket, simply moving the jacket aside to get to a wallet has been enough to get folks arrested. Always ensure your knife is completely concealed at all times.

If you are arrested for possession of an “illegal knife” in New York, please contact Knife Rights at: nycity@KnifeRights.org

About:
Knife Rights (www.KnifeRights.org) is America’s Grassroots Knife Owners Organization, working towards a Sharper Future for all knife owners. Knife Rights is dedicated to providing knife owners an effective voice in public policy. Become a Knife Rights member and make a contribution to support the fight for your knife rights. Visit www.kniferights.org

My Gun Culture

USA --(Ammoland.com)- Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) spokesperson Senator Al Franken announced today formation of a new political organization – Mayors Against Legal Governing, or MALG.

Inspiration for the spinoff organization came out of a recent emergency meeting called to address the problem of inordinate numbers of MAIG members running afoul of the law. Since it’s formation in 2006, MAIG has suffered a rash of embarrassing incidents where member Mayors have been arrested, convicted, and even jailed for a broad variety of crimes.

Mayor Bloomberg (Photo nydailynews.com)

“I mean everyone knows that we don’t play by the same rules as common people. We finally decided, hey, why the secrecy? Let’s just be out in the open about it and organize and embrace the lawlessness,” noted MAIG and MALG Founder New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

MALG organizers stress the importance of planning and metrics to success of their long term mission.

“The pro-second amendment crowd likes to use lot’s of fancy statistics to prove things, so we decided we needed to whip up some of our own,” explained MALG organizer Bloomberg.

Inside sources indicate that Mayors Against Legal Governing is trying to make sure that their mayors have equal representation from all sorts of lawless behavior. So far, members have compiled an impressive list of illicit behaviors including Campaign Finance Scandal, Bribery, Counterfeiting, Domestic Abuse, Extortion, Money Laundering, Miscellaneous Corruption, Falsifying Evidence, Double-Secret Federal Charges, and Child Pornography.

“While we’re off to an impressive start, we’ve got some real gaps in the areas of armed robbery,  impersonation of clergy, and nude Llama wrestling,” observed Mayor Bloomberg. “If you know anyone, please give them my number.

“Originally we wanted to keep this organization exclusive and only allow membership to Mayors who are actual convicted felons or those who were in the process of being convicted,” explained Mayor Bloomberg. “But we’re really making a renewed effort to be inclusive so we’re going consider adding Mayors with Misdemeanors to the group.”

About: Tom McHale describes himself as a conservative gun-totin’ bible-clingin’ literary assault dude who enjoys finding humor in just about anything. His web blog My Gun Culture is an irreverent, twisted look at gun news bordering on the ridiculous. It covers shootin’ stuff, loud noises, defending your own, the occasional mall ninja, and about 200 years of the American way. “These are the (partially) true stories of… My Gun Culture” says Tom. Visit: www.mygunculture.com

Wisconsin Firearm Owners, Ranges, Clubs & Educators

Wisconsin --(Ammoland.com)- Governor Scott Walker reluctantly approved the Emergency Concealed Carry Rules promulgated by the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ).

While the Governor has many of the same concerns that were expressed by NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox in his letter to Attorney General Van Hollen, he understandably did not want to further delay the ability of citizens of Wisconsin to carry concealed handguns for self-defense.

His rejection of the Emergency Rules would have resulted in a significant delay on implementation of the new law that takes effect on November 1.

Governor Walker stated, “We’re hopeful that the Department of Justice improves the permanent rules substantially before sending them to the Administration and the legislature for approval.”

The NRA will continue to work with the state legislature to ensure that this happens.

Unfortunately, DOJ has chosen to overstep its authority by imposing conditions on prospective concealed weapons license applicants that the legislature never adopted or intended. As part of the Executive Branch of state government, DOJ’s role is to faithfully implement the laws adopted by the legislature, not dramatically change them. If the Emergency Rules are allowed to become permanent, they will set a dangerous precedent that perverts our system of government and its principles associated with the separation of powers.

When the Legislature adopted Act 35, the concealed weapons law, two provisions were very clear. There was to be no minimum number of hours of firearms training required in order to satisfy the training mandate and any qualifying firearms training or safety class that a prospective applicant has taken at any time in the past would be accepted.

Through its Emergency Rules, the DOJ has effectively negated both of these provisions. First, the Rules require a minimum of four hours of training. Both houses of the legislature contemplated amendments that would have required a minimum number of hours of training and specific curriculum. These amendments were rejected.

Secondly, DOJ had deviated from the examples set by other states with virtually identical statutory language by micromanaging the information that must be provided on training certificates submitted by applicants. No training certificates anywhere in the country contain the information that the Wisconsin DOJ demands. This renders all existing certificates insufficient for submission with a citizen’s license application. DOJ could have easily established a system that would have allowed existing training certificates to be submitted while ensuring that the requirements of the concealed weapons law are met.

It is now time for you to act! The Emergency Rules will now be sent to the legislature for approval or rejection. Please contact your state representative and senator and ask that they reject the Emergency Rules and work to ensure that that the permanent rules ultimately reflect the clear letter of the law and the legislature’s intent. In the meantime, the Emergency Rules will remain in effect so as to ensure that there is no delay in the November 1 implementation of this essential new law. Contact information for your state representative and senator can be found by clicking here.

About:
Wi-FORCE promotes and protects the shooting sports, hunting, and the lawful ownership and use of firearms in Wisconsin. We coordinate match schedules of member clubs, sanction the state championship matches, monitor and recommend legislation, and provide training and educational programs for our members, competitors and Wisconsin shooters. Wi-FORCE supports the interaction and education of all individuals and groups interested in the shooting sports and the natural right of citizens to own arms. Visit: www.wi-force.org

If Pro-Gun Folks Had An ‘Occupy’ Event…

About: Tom McHale describes himself as a conservative gun-totin’ bible-clingin’ literary assault dude who enjoys finding humor in just about anything. His web blog My Gun Culture is an irreverent, twisted look at gun news bordering on the ridiculous. It covers shootin’ stuff, loud noises, defending your own, the occasional mall ninja, and about 200 years of the American way. These are the (partially) true stories of My Gun Culture says Tom. Visit: www.mygunculture.com

National Association for Gun Rights India

Second Amendment Foundation

BELLEVUE, WA --(Ammoland.com)- The International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR) has added the National Association for Gun Rights India (NAGRI) as a member of international gun rights association working to protect and expand the right to keep and bear arms around the globe.

NAGRI joins 15 other groups from eight countries on five different continents that represent millions of firearm owners and citizens concerned about civilian arms rights.

“It is heartening to see groups like NAGRI who are passionate and active for civilian arms rights joining our coalition,” said IAPCAR executive director, Philip Watson.

“In the wake of the tragic Mumbai massacre, Indians are rethinking their country’s repressive gun restrictions and see the need to empower citizens. Self-defense is a civil right; the denial of this right should not be tolerated,” Watson observed.

“NAGRI is delighted to be associated with IAPCAR. All pro-gun associations and civil rights organizations should join hands,” said Rakshit Sharma, a representative of NAGRI.

As India’s highest profile gun rights advocacy association, NAGRI also runs the popular online forum, Indians for Guns (http://indiansforguns.com).

Julianne Versnel, director of operations for the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Alan Gottlieb, Chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) established IAPCAR to serve as a vehicle to unify arms rights groups against international threats to the human right of self-defense and the legitimate use of guns.

“IAPCAR strongly opposes any U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that infringes on national sovereignty and the individual right to keep arms,” said SAF’s Versnel.

CCRKBA’s Gottlieb added, “Events over the past decade have emphasized the urgent need to protect the individual right to defend oneself and one’s family against grave threats, including crime, civil unrest and terrorism. IAPCAR is dedicated to preserving this human right.”

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

Gun Owners of America

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- According to a new Zogby poll this week, Herman Cain has soared into the lead and now sits atop the Republican field.

Here are the latest results:

• Herman Cain (28%)
• Rick Perry (18%)
• Mitt Romney (17%)
• Ron Paul (11%)\
• Newt Gingrich (6%)
• Jon Huntsman, Jr. (5%)
• Michele Bachmann (4%)
• Rick Santorum (2%)
• Gary Johnson (1%)

Cain is one of a few Republican hopefuls who have taken a strong stand on issues that are important to political conservatives.

But where does he stand on the Second Amendment?
Some of the top contenders (such as Rick Perry and Ron Paul) have pro-gun records to run on. Others (such as Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich) have very mixed or anti-gun records in their haunted past. But Cain has no legislative record. We have no history in public office by which to judge him — which is why it’s so important that GOA gets an answer back from him on GOA’s Presidential Survey.

Otherwise, we only have bits and pieces of speeches and interviews that Cain has engaged in. And while those statements help somewhat, they also raise more questions than they answer.

For example, in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer earlier this year, Cain expressed strong support for gun rights: “I support, strongly support, the Second Amendment. I don’t support onerous legislation that’s going to restrict people’s rights in order to be able to protect themselves as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

But in answer to a follow-up question asking whether states or local governments should be allowed to impose gun control restrictions, Cain said, “Yes. The answer is yes, that should be a state’s decision.”

That’s an answer that needs further explanation, especially given the fact that almost one year earlier to the day, the Supreme Court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that states and localities were limited with respect to interfering with a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms.

Now, to be fair, it could be that Cain is thinking: As President, it’s none of my business what the states do on guns or any other issue. A true constitutionalist (unlike the current President) would understand that the federal government has limited powers and is restricted to exercising the 17 or 18 powers that are spelled out in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Moreover, a true constitutionalist would understand that the states – as James Madison said -- have “plenary powers” to try different approaches. As goes the cliché: the states are separate “laboratories” for public policy experiments.

Cain’s statement about state gun control does raise some important questions though:

Is he aware that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted to impose the Bill of Rights — and specifically the Second Amendment – upon the states?

What does he think about the Supreme Court’s decision in McDonald? Does he agree that states and localities – subsequent to the Fourteenth Amendment – are constitutionally barred from banning guns?

And what about concealed carry outside of one’s home state? As President, would Herman Cain sign or veto a bill like H.R. 2900, which provides for concealed carry recognition amongst the states?

We don’t have answers to these questions, and that’s why GOA’s Presidential Survey is so important. It asks about concealed carry recognition, the renewal of the semi-auto ban and repealing gun restrictions (like the Brady law and various import bans). Plus it gets the candidates’ views on issues such as UN gun control, undoing existing anti-gun Executive Orders and reining in the BATFE.

GOA has sent a survey to Herman Cain, but so far, he has not returned a completed questionnaire. And here’s where you can help.

ACTION: Please contact the Cain campaign and urge him to return GOA’s Presidential Survey. You can contact Herman Cain by cutting-and-pasting the message below after going to his contact page here: http://www.hermancain.com/contact-us

—– Pre-written letter to Herman Cain —–

Dear Mr. Cain:

Congratulations on your rise to the top of the Republican field. According to Zogby, you now lead in the polls.

I know that you have taken some strong constitutional stands in general. However, I would like to know where you stand on the Second Amendment in particular. I know that you have made some positive statements on firearms, but there have been other comments which have caused concern.

Gun Owners of America tells me they have sent you a Presidential Survey, but that you have not yet returned it. Their survey asks about issues that are very important to me including concealed carry recognition, the renewal of the semi-auto ban and repealing gun restrictions (like the Brady law and various import bans).

Would you please return GOA’s Presidential Survey? I look forward to hearing from them that they have your questionnaire in hand.

Sincerely,

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

When Heller Met McDonald

About: Tom McHale describes himself as a conservative gun-totin’ bible-clingin’ literary assault dude who enjoys finding humor in just about anything. His web blog My Gun Culture is an irreverent, twisted look at gun news bordering on the ridiculous. It covers shootin’ stuff, loud noises, defending your own, the occasional mall ninja, and about 200 years of the American way. These are the (partially) true stories of My Gun Culture says Tom. Visit: www.mygunculture.com

Gunlaws.com

PHOENIX, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- The lamestream media told you: Arizona has some of the worst, most lax gun laws in the nation. The Brady Center for the Promotion of Gun Violence gave the state a zero (out of a possible 100) on its report card rating for gun laws, it’s so bad.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:
Arizona has extremely strict gun laws, with everything remotely criminal against the law, usually several ways, with steep fines, long jail time and vigorous prosecutors. You can be put to death in Arizona for the worst violations.

What Arizona has that makes the left and the anti-rights mob so angry, is robust protection for the civil rights of any average resident to keep and bear arms, without interference with this right.

The “news” media may call that lax, but to people who know, that’s called freedom, and it’s desirable. The left is increasingly the party that stands against individual freedom, with some parts of the right unfortunately not far behind.

Because the “news” media sets the tone of debate for the nation, people championing freedom and individual rights are cast as destructive, and must respond defensively. The truly destructive people, like the Bradys, are portrayed as the moral high ground — precisely opposite of reality.

This is what passes for an informed public. It’s no wonder the nation is in distress.

People who are against gun rights and other freedoms, or think a law that protects us from government interference is a bad thing, are in essence preaching socialism and dominance of the state over freedom of the individual.

This is wrong, and bad, by definition. Knowing what the Brady scores and “news” media really represents, activists in the state were pushing for a minus score.

About GunLaws.com:
Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Bloomfield Press, founded in 1988, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Our website, gunlaws.com, features a free national directory to gun laws and relevant contacts in all states and federally, along with our unique line of related books and DVDs. “After Your Shoot” for media review is available on request, call 800-707-4020. Our authors are available for interview, call to schedule. Call for cogent positions on gun issues, informed analysis on proposed laws, talk radio that lights up the switchboard, fact sheets and position papers. As we always say, “It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules.” Visit: www.gunlaws.com

National Association for Gun Rights

Colorado -–(Ammoland.com)- Nothing. He said nothing.

Rick Perry’s response to gun owners was…… silence.

Last week, Governor Perry’s deadline passed to return his National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey.

Over the last few weeks, tens of thousands of NAGR members and supporters phoned Governor Perry and his campaign staff urging him to return his NAGR Presidential Survey 100% in support of our Second Amendment rights.

Mr. Perry refused.

Mr. Perry refused to tell gun owners where he stands on important Second Amendment issues:

• *** The UN “Small Arms Treaty” — a global scheme currently being worked on that would gut the Second Amendment;
• *** The elimination of the ATF — the federal department responsible for smuggling weapons to Mexican drug cartels, and then attempting to cover their scandal up;
• *** Would Rick Perry veto or sign a bill to reauthorize the so-called “Assault Weapons” Ban, which banned certain full capacity magazines and many types of semiautomatic firearms?
• *** Whether or not he would sign or veto legislation to eliminate the 1993 Brady Registration Scheme.

This is more than troublesome to me.

I have seen this game played many times before when politicians refuse to openly say where they stand on gun rights.

They don’t want to go on record because they feel a need to have wiggle room to cut deals and compromise when they get into office.

And worst of all, Rick Perry appears to be the frontrunner.

Rick Perry needs to know that you don’t appreciate his stonewalling on our Second Amendment rights.

Call him today: 512-463-2000 and tell Rick Perry to come clean.

Our God-given right to defend ourselves and our families is under constant assault by Democrats AND Republicans in Washington.

The last thing you and I need is a Republican candidate for President who refuses to tell gun owners exactly where he stands on gun rights.

Please make that call just as soon as you can. Here’s the number again: 512-463-2000

P.S. Rick Perry refused to return his National Association for Gun Rights Presidential Survey. Candidates who refuse to tell gun owners where they stand have historically sold out gun owners for the sake of “compromise.”

About:
The National Association for Gun Rights is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, single-purpose citizens’ organization dedicated to preserving and protecting the Constitutionally protected right-to-keep-and-bear-arms through an aggressive program designed to mobilize public opposition to anti-gun legislation. The National Association for Gun Rights’ mailing address is P.O 7002, Fredericksburg, VA 22404. They can be contacted toll-free at 1-877-405-4570. Its web address is www.NationalGunRights.org

Editorial Disclaimer: The opinions and views expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of the staff, AmmoLand Shooting Sports News, or other sponsors and partners. See the Editorial-Review Process for more details.

Candidate Carl Wimmer of Utah

Gun Owners of America

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- There is a candidate for Congress running in Utah that every gun owner should get to know.

His name is Carl Wimmer, and he is a champion of the Second Amendment and of reining in the out-of-control federal government.

Carl is just an everyday average citizen who got fed up when his own state representative voted against freedom one too many times. He ran for office and—to the shock of the political establishment—Carl won.

Other legislators expected the new Rep. Wimmer to fall in line with the Republican caucus once he arrived at the state capital. But Carl had no intention of becoming just another yes man for party leaders. He got into politics to restore liberty, and his list of accomplishments thus far is impressive.

Soon after being elected, Carl helped form the Patrick Henry Caucus. The Caucus, open to state legislators across the country, asserts State’s powers against federal, unconstitutional intrusion.

One of the first issues Wimmer’s group took on in Utah was the “Firearms Freedom Act,” which states that all firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition “manufactured commercially or privately in the state to be used or sold within the state is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.”

Rep. Wimmer also authored the state’s Constitutional Carry bill. Constitutional carry restores the proper relationship of the citizen to their public servants by recognizing that We the People are the sovereigns and should not be forced to obtain government approval to exercise a constitutional right.

Carl authored the state’s Health Care nullification bill, which would protect Utah citizens from the unconstitutional mandate of the anti-gun ObamaCare law.

And he co-sponsored a land nullification bill to prevent federal control over land in the state without the consent of the Utah legislature.

Now Carl aims to take his small-government views to Washington. He is running for the new Utah congressional seat that resulted from the most recent congressional reapportionment.

Those who believe in freedom and limited government will not find a better friend than Carl Wimmer. Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund is proud to endorse his candidacy for Congress, and we encourage gun owners from across the country to put Carl on the top of their list of candidates to watch—and to support.

Please visit www.carlwimmer.com to make a contribution to his campaign and to learn more about Carl.

Thank you in advance for getting behind the Wimmer campaign.

P.S. Many politicians will try to keep this seat out of the hands of a true constitutionalist. So please visit https://carlwimmer.netboots.net/contribute to make a contribution today.

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

Gun Rights Policies with John Snyder

Arlington, VA -The statement that God, Guns and Guts made America free and we we fight to keep all three is full of deep philosophical meaning.

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

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

National Rifle Association

FAIRFAX, Va. --(Ammoland.com)- On September 9, the U.S. House Veterans Affairs Committee passed an amendment by U.S. Representative Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) as a part of a larger piece of veterans’ legislation.

The Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, which was added to H.R.2349 as an amendment, would provide individuals receiving veterans’ benefits with added protection against loss of the right to possess firearms due to mental health decisions.

Currently, when a person has a fiduciary appointed to handle his or her veterans’ benefits, the federal government considers that person to have been “adjudicated as a mental defective” and therefore prohibited from possessing firearms.

The injustice of this process has long been criticized both by NRA and by veterans’ groups. The current system disarms veterans and others receiving benefits based on a totally administrative process and without requiring any finding that the person poses a danger to himself or herself or to anyone else. Earlier steps to fix this situation were made in the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which required federal agencies that make mental “adjudications” to provide processes under which those affected can apply for “relief from disabilities.”

The NRA-backed amendment (also supported by major veterans’ groups such as the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars) would provide that for purposes of the firearm prohibition, a person subject to a mental health decision by the VA would not be considered “adjudicated as a mental defective” without a court finding that the person is dangerous.

“Members of our Armed Forces who risked life and limb in defense of country are being denied their Second Amendment freedom simply because they’ve been appointed a fiduciary by the Department of Veteran Affairs to handle their financial affairs. These are good, honest men and women. They are not a danger to themselves, or to others, and it is wrong to deny them their constitutional freedom,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox. “Rep. Rehberg’s bill addresses this issue and rightly ensures that veterans and their family members aren’t prohibited from having guns unless they’ve been found to be dangerous. NRA would like to thank Rep. Rehberg for his leadership on this important measure.”

To read Rep. Rehberg’s news release on the bill, please click here.

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

AmmoLand Gun News

WASHINGTON, D.C. --(Ammoland.com)- Montana’s Congressman, Denny Rehberg, praised the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs for passing his Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act as a part of a larger piece of vets-related legislation today.

Rehberg’s bill, which was added to H.R.2349 as an amendment, protects veterans gun rights unless they are determined to be a danger to themselves or others by a judicial authority.

“Protecting our Constitutional rights is one of the most important functions the federal government undertakes, all the more so for the veterans who risked their lives in defense of those rights,” said Rehberg, who has an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association and A rating from Gun Owners of America. “There are people in Washington who will stop at nothing to take away our gun rights. They’re stacking the Supreme Court, they’re trying to change the laws and they’re using unelected bureaucrats to do it. That they would start with the men and women who served their country in the military is just wrong. I’m glad the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee passed my legislation to stop this injustice once and for all.”

“It is a Constitutional right to bear arms that should not, and must not, be criminalized by bureaucratic tribunal,” stated Rep. Jeff Miller (FL-01), Chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. “Rep. Rehberg and the Committee reaffirmed that right today and we will continue to fight to ensure this right is not undermined in the VA system.”

The Federal Gun Control Act prohibits certain individuals who have been adjudicated a “mental defective” from purchasing a firearm. Before a gun is sold, dealers consult the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to verify that the buyer is eligible.

The VA is required to report a veteran who has been declared mentally defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution to the NICS, prohibiting them from purchasing a firearm. But now the VA is reporting individuals who have had a fiduciary appointed to act on their financial behalf as “mentally defective” to the NICS database, prohibiting them from exercising their 2nd amendment rights and purchasing a firearm, too.

The VA may assign a “fiduciary,” generally a friend or family member, to a veteran (or their surviving spouse, dependent child or dependent parent) to handle their disability compensation, pension, or other VA payments. The veteran is assigned a fiduciary because they have been administratively declared incompetent to handle their VA compensation. The review process on placing a veteran under a fiduciary is only meant to determine their ability to handle their finances, not their right to bear arms.

Rehberg’s legislation would require that for purposes of the firearm prohibition, a person subject to a mental health decision by the VA would not be considered “adjudicated as a mental defective” without a court finding that the person is dangerous. If it becomes law, a veteran who has simply been assigned a fiduciary for the purposes of their VA compensation would maintain the right to exercise their 2nd amendment rights and purchase a firearm unless a judge declares them “dangerous” and unfit to do so. Only a judicial authority, and not a Veterans Administration official, has the ability to take away their right to bear arms.

“Members of our Armed Forces who risked life and limb in defense of country are being denied their Second Amendment freedom simply because they’ve been appointed a fiduciary by the Department of Veteran Affairs to handle their financial affairs. These are good, honest men and women. They are not a danger to themselves, or to others, and it is wrong to deny them their constitutional freedom,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “H.R. 1898 addresses this issue and rightly ensures that veterans and their family members aren’t prohibited from having guns unless they’ve been found to be dangerous. NRA would like to thank Rep. Rehberg for his leadership on this important measure.”

“This legislation is so important for American veterans who served their country to protect our Constitituaional rights including the Second Amendment,” said Hershel Gober, National Legislative Director for the Military Order of the Purple Heart. “Denny Rehberg has been a lifelong supporter of vets issues and the Second Amendment. His work to make this legislation a reality is much appreciated.”

Gun Owners of America

Washington, DC --(Ammoland.com)- Within the next month, Congress will be taking actions that will impact our Second Amendment rights.

Here’s what we’re facing. On or about September 30, Congress will consider a “continuing resolution” (CR) to fund the government from October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012.

Well, you can be sure about this — when it comes to funding the government, any bill passed by Congress will NOT be neutral on the Second Amendment:

• Either the CR will fund the anti-gun ObamaCare program … or it will explicitly prohibit ObamaCare from being funded.
• Either it will fund ATF’s illegal efforts to register multiple sales of long guns in the southwest … or it will explicitly prohibit those activities from being funded.
• Either it will fund the Obama administration’s illegal efforts to block the importation of shotguns and rifles … or it will explicitly prohibit these bans from being funded.
• Either it will fund negotiations at the United Nations to produce a small arms treaty that will license firearms, ban semi-autos, and ban tiny modifications of firearms … or it will explicitly prohibit those negotiations.

Barack Obama can veto the CR. If he does so, his wretched administration will be shut down.

But the House of Representatives also has a veto, as it can refuse to send an anti-gun CR to the Senate.

So the message is that Congress needs to reject any CR which:

• Does not defund ObamaCare;
• Does not defund the illegal multiples sales regs;
• Does not defund the illegal shotgun and rifle import bans;
• Does not defund the UN negotiations to license American gun owners.

We can tell you right now that there will be some congressmen who will say: “Sure, I voted to fund ObamaCare. But that doesn’t mean I support ObamaCare.”

That is a lie.

There are congressmen who will say: “Sure, I voted to fund the registration of long guns. But that doesn’t mean I support the registration of long guns.”

That is a lie.

There are some who will say: “Sure, I voted to fund the bans on importing shotguns and rifles. But that doesn’t mean I support those import bans.”

That is a lie.

And there are some who will say: “Sure, I voted to fund UN negotiations to register gun owners. But that doesn’t mean I support gun registration.”

That is a lie.

ACTION: Contact your congressman. Tell him to stake out a position early and publicly that he will oppose any CR which does not defund ObamaCare, the illegal long gun multiple sales regs, the illegal shotgun and rifle bans, and the UN negotiations to produce a treaty which will register American gun owners.

Click Here to Send Your Representative a pre-written email message.

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

KNIFE CONTROL - Boston City Council Holds Knife Control Hearing

KnifeRights.org

Gilbert, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- On Thursday, September 8, 2011, the Public Safety Committee of the Boston City Council held a public hearing concerning the potential licensing of businesses that sell knives.

According to the supporters of the proposed license, the action is needed as a means to address the “ever increasing knife violence in Boston.”

Knife Rights was represented by Jim Wallace, Executive Director of Gun Owners’ Action League, who was also representing his own organization.

The politicians attending were clearly firm in their conviction that action must be taken, some scapegoat must be found. There were grieving parents and their genuine heart wrenching stories of lost loved ones. Public safety officials offered supportive testimony for the proposal.

For anyone who attended the infamous Gun Control hearings here a decade ago, the only difference was that the word “guns” was replaced with “knives.”

The testimony and statements during the public hearing were frighteningly reminiscent of past gun control hearings.

“Why would we allow any corner store to sell these dangerous weapons (knives).” “Selling knives does not support families.” “We must do everything we can to restrict access to these dangerous weapons.” “Why would anyone need a knife with a blade more than two inches long.”"Knives are fine if you need them for work, but employers should require they be left on the job.”

To anyone who has been involved in the Second Amendment battle in the last few decades it sends a shiver up your spine, because this is exactly how gun control efforts were initiated. To make matters more frightening, law enforcement officials testified that “the modern way of approaching these issues is to go after the source of the items rather than the criminals themselves.”

Wallace urged the City Council to take careful and meaningful steps in addressing the problem of violent crime.

“I urge the City Council to review what it is about to do and reflect on the failures of gun control,” said Wallace.

“Over a decade ago I had to testify before committees in the state house with grieving families in the background. Now I sit before you a decade later with grieving families behind me again. If you proceed down this path and get it wrong again, ten years from now we will likely repeat this scene yet again.”

Wallace also reminded the councilors that these stores are already licensed by the city, for which they pay a fee and are subject to city oversight as to their compliance with the law, and that there is already an ordinance on the books that makes it illegal to sell a knife with a blade two inches or longer to anyone under age 18. He reiterated that there is no need for new regulation.

Even in high security of prisons rudimentary knives (shivs) are readily available, which shows the futility of trying to control the source of a such an easy to make weapon, as opposed to penalizing law-abiding citizens and making it more difficult for them to obtain the versatile tools used by millions every day at work, home and while recreating.

The City Council took no action on the matter during the hearing. It is likely that it will be some weeks before a draft ordinance is presented to the City Council as a whole.

In the meantime, we will work to try to ensure that history does not repeat itself. We have an unusual advantage in this situation to know what the future will bring if we follow this path of knife control proposed by Boston. We know without any doubt that citizens’ rights will be trampled. Most certainly grieving families will still be burying loved ones because politicians would appear to prefer going after the source of an inanimate object rather than the human criminal element – the source of the crime. The solution offered up today is no solution at all.

If you are a Boston citizen, here is a link to the councilors’ webpages where you can find a link to contact them and POLITELY express your outrage: http://www.cityofboston.gov/citycouncil/councillors

We urge all Boston area Knife Rights members to contact the Boston City Council and express their opposition to this measure.

Your membership and support allows Knife Rights to oppose efforts such as this to restrict our freedoms. If you are not yet a member, please join Knife Rights and encourage your friends to join today!

About:
Knife Rights (www.KnifeRights.org) is America’s Grassroots Knife Owners Organization, working towards a Sharper Future for all knife owners. Knife Rights is dedicated to providing knife owners an effective voice in public policy. Become a Knife Rights member and make a contribution to support the fight for your knife rights. Visit www.kniferights.org

What If Your Neighbor Refused To Support Your Right To Free Speech?

New Jersey Second Amendment Society

New Jersey --(Ammoland.com)- It is not that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens can never be used to commit a crime or be involved in an accident.

Not only can those things happen, it is inevitable that they will occasionally happen. Fortunately, they are an extreme rarity, but they do happen.

That is still not an excuse to disarm the majority of law-abiding citizens who use firearms safely every day for target shooting, sporting events, hunting and most importantly self-defense.

No amount of rhetoric on the part of gun prohibitionists is going to change the fact that guns save lives. In most cases, guns save lives without a shot being fired. That is why you don’t hear about it.

When states adopt sane laws supporting the right to carry a defensive handgun, violent crime rates go down. This is a fact.

Without a shot being fired, the possibility of a potential victim being armed is a serious deterrent to the would-be criminal. How can the impact of that fact be fairly evaluated when the Main Stream Media will only report on the most revolting and sensational gun related deaths they can find while virtually ignoring actual crime statistics. Statistics do not earn them an audience and thus they do not care. They also do not care when a criminal is deterred from committing a crime by the simple presentation of a firearm by the potential victim. No one got shot. There is nothing “newsworthy” there as far as the media are concerned. There is no other method but “common sense” to fairly evaluate whether or not the right to carry a firearm for self-defense is more valuable to a society than the possibility of an accident or misuse of a firearm.

Even if it was not obvious that guns save lives, we do not strip people of their cars because some people choose to drive drunk, or are careless in their use of a car. We prosecute the individual. That is the American legal system at work. A driver is not considered guilty until proven innocent just for possessing and using a car. Yet possession of a firearm in New Jersey is almost ALWAYS a crime except under some VERY specific instances (such as going to or from the range or moving to or from a residence).

What makes it worse is the RIGHT TO DRIVE is not a constitutionally protected right as the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS *IS*!

This is a backwards, BIZARRO-land approach to a very important constitutional right. As responsible United States citizens, you should support the constitutional right of your neighbor to keep and bear arms for legitimate purposes whether or not you yourself wish to possess a firearm.

Would you consider it wrong for your neighbor NOT to support your right to FREE SPEECH?
Please keep in mind that our founders created the Bill of Rights to protect ALL our fundamental rights. Free Speech is protected by the FIRST Amendment, and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by the SECOND. I think it is pretty clear what they had in mind. An unarmed citizenry is vulnerable to any gang of thugs who decide to use force against them. It doesn’t matter whether that means a street gang, or a gang of politician’s intent on stripping you of your fundamental rights.

I don’t know how to state this any clearer. If the average citizen is going to allow the media or the Mayors Against Gun Owners, or the Brady Bunch, or any other of the Gun Prohibitionist Groups to dictate the creation of unconstitutional laws based on a false appeal to their emotions, this country is in for a MUCH worse situation than just the economic recession. We COULD lose our freedom.

I would like to invite those of you who believe in the right to keep and bear arms as I do, to join me Thursday evening September 15, 2011 at the Essex County Friends of the NRA dinner at Mayfair Farms in West Orange, NJ. You can sign up to sit with me and the other members of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society by registering for the event on our website at www.nj2as.com. Just go to the EVENTS page and click on the Friends of the NRA Dinner REGISTER button. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions by emailing me atPreseident@nj2as.com. I’ll look forward to seeing you there. Thank you.

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

KnifeRights.org

Gilbert, AZ --(Ammoland.com)- As we warned, this Thursday, September 8, 2011, the Public Safety Committee of the Boston City Council will be holding a hearing with the intention of licensing the sale of knives in the city of Boston.

Below is the official stated purpose of the hearing:

That the appropriate committee of the Boston City Council hold a hearing to examine requiring the sale of knives to be licensed by the appropriate police agency that would monitor, regulate and license businesses selling knives. Representatives from the Boston Police Department, Inspectional Services Department, and other interested parties shall be invited to attend.

The meeting will be at Boston City Hall, Ianella Chambers, 5th Floor on Thursday, September 8, 2011 at 10 am.

If you are a Boston citizen, here is a link to the councilors’ webpages where you can find a link to contact them and POLITELY express your outrage: http://www.cityofboston.gov/citycouncil/councillors

We urge all Boston area Knife Rights members to contact the Boston City Council and express their opposition to this measure. Currently citizens need a license to possess pepper spray. In a year or so this measure could lead to licensing citizens to possess a basic pocket knife.

As noted in the article linked below, existing Boston law already prohibits knives with a blade two inches or longer from being sold to anyone under age 18. A number of stores were fined as a result of a recent sting operation for illegally selling knives to underage persons. There is no indication that there has been any factual connection made between violence committed with knives in the city and these retailers, or that licensing would actually help the situation any more than simply enforcing the existing law on the books.

Knife Rights has a representative in Massachusetts who will be attending this meeting, but if you live in the area and can attend as well, the stronger show of opposition we can generate, the better.

Video: www.bit.ly/p0TUmg
Article: http://bo.st/qBwsaZ

Your membership and support allows Knife Rights to oppose efforts such as this to restrict our freedoms. If you are not yet a member, please join Knife Rights and encourage your friends to join today!

About:
Knife Rights (www.KnifeRights.org) is America’s Grassroots Knife Owners Organization, working towards a Sharper Future for all knife owners. Knife Rights is dedicated to providing knife owners an effective voice in public policy. Become a Knife Rights member and make a contribution to support the fight for your knife rights. Visit www.kniferights.org

Hawaii Defense Foundation

Honolulu, HI --(Ammoland.com)- The Hawaii Defense Foundation’s founding director and president, Christopher Baker, has filed a lawsuit against Honolulu Chief of Police Louis Kealoha, the Honolulu Police Department, the City and County of Honolulu, the State of Hawaii, and Governor Neil Abercrombie in connection with civil rights violations of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.

The complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii by attorneys Richard Holcomb, Alan Beck, and Kevin O’Grady alleges that Hawaii’s license to carry statute and various other firearm regulations are unconstitutional.

State law mandates that citizens may be provided licenses to carry only in “exceptional circumstance” or “where a need or urgency has been sufficiently indicated,” all at the discretion of the county’s Chief of Police.

The complaint asserts that this language violates the Second Amendment, which secures the right of all responsible, law-abiding citizens to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. Additionally, the complaint also addresses the use of non-lethal tools for self-defense such as electric guns, which are banned in in Hawaii.

“The Second Amendment protects the right to self-defense. Everyday around the islands good people are robbed, assaulted, raped, or in the worst cases murdered. It’s simply a matter of physics, the Police can’t be everywhere to stop criminals from committing violent acts. We must be allowed to carry the tools that give us a chance to protect ourselves from harm,” says Chris Baker.

“We want criminals to have to think about the consequences of attacking someone,” he continued, “but right now, nothing serves as a deterrent to them – the odds are in their favor.”

Hawaii Defense Foundation (www.TheHDF.org) is a domestic not-for-profit corporation based in Honolulu, Hawaii. The Foundation serves the community by providing various services, such as: legal defense of civil rights, educational courses on firearm safety, self-defense training, and life saving techniques – such as first aid and CPR. The Foundation has many supporters and members across the State of Hawaii.

If you would like to show your support or are looking for additional information please contact the Foundation’s Secretary, Erica Castillo, at (808) 664-1827 or info(at)hawaiidefensefoundation.org.

Is it legal for me to clean my guns on my open front porch or in a detached garage?

FirearmsTruth.com

Michigan --(Ammoland.com)- D.C. v Heller and McDonald v Chicago were decided in favor of gun rights three and two years ago respectively.

Those of us who cherish our 2nd Amendment Rights were jubilant that finally the Supreme Court cleared up the issue in our favor. But as FirearmsTruth reported back then, not all issues were clearly defined by The Court.

Some jurisdictions, like the city of Chicago, disregarded the spirit of the McDonald holding and put as many bureaucratic obstacles against gun ownership as they could. Since Heller was decided three years ago, there have been over 400 legal challenges to constitutionally protected firearms possession. Most of these lower court rulings have been in favor of gun control.

Heller and McDonald make clear that a law abiding citizen has the right to own a firearm for home self-protection. But does this right extend beyond the inside of the home, and if so, how far?

For example, is it legal for me to clean my handgun on my open front porch or in a detached garage? If I am traveling to a shooting range by car how must my firearm be secured? Can it be loaded? What about travel by foot?

Lower federal and state courts have overwhelmingly ruled in favor of local or state restrictions.

Maryland’s highest state court was quite blunt in one of its decisions in favor of gun control: “If the Supreme Court … means its holdings to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly.”

In the Maryland case, Charles Williams Jr. was convicted for transporting a firearm in public without a permit. He put the gun in a bag before traveling from his girlfriend’s house to his own. William’s attorney, Stephan Halbrook, argues that the Maryland law requiring a travel permit is unconstitutional because “basically ordinary people can’t get one.”

I want to know how you are supposed to get your firearm home from the store in Maryland. Do the police deliver and how much should you tip them?

Some of the restrictive ruling by lower courts will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Hopefully The Court will hear one or more of these and give clear guidelines on how restrictive gun control laws can be when it comes to the 2nd Amendment outside the home.

About John Kullman:
John Kullman holds a jurist doctorate from Thomas Cooley Law School, and a dual bachelor degree in English and Speech, as well as a minor in History from Central Michigan University. He previously was employed with Haliburton and Long & Wetzel. He is the managing editor of Firearmstruth.com, and is avid guns right advocate.

Florida Carry

Florida - -(Ammoland.com)- So, you have your Florida Concealed Weapon or Firearm License (CWFL) and you know that Florida preempts all firearms laws throughout the state so that you don’t accidentally break some ridiculous local ordinance and end up in the hoosegow for carrying your weapon.

You have a license from the state and we fought hard to make preemption enforceable last legislative session!

Well, you are half right. Your pistol won’t get you in trouble but your pocket knife could put you away for a MINIMUM of six months, cost you a cool grand, and yeah… they’ll take your knife too.

But wait! I have a license from the state to carry that! Yep you do, but not from Miami-Dade County and your assisted opening pocket knife just violated their laws.

See: Sec. 21-14. – Dangerous weapons; penalty; trial court.

(a) Concealed dangerous weapons. It shall be unlawful for any person to wear under his clothes, or concealed about his person, or to display in a threatening manner any dangerous or deadly weapon including, but not by way of limitation, any pistol, revolver, slingshot, cross-knuckles or knuckles of lead, brass or other metal, or any bowie knife, razor, dirk, dagger, or any knife resembling a bowie knife, or any other dangerous or deadly weapon, except as hereinafter provided.
(b) Switch blades. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell, offer to sell, display, use, possess or carry any knife or knives having the appearance of a pocket knife, the blade or blades of which can be opened by a flick of a button, pressure on the handle, or other mechanical contrivance. Any such knife is hereby declared to be a dangerous or deadly weapon, within the meaning of subsection (a) and shall be subject to forfeiture to the County as provided by subsection (c).
…
(e) Penalty. Every person who is convicted for a violation of subsection (a) shall for first conviction thereof be punished by imprisonment for not less than six (6) months and by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00); for a second or subsequent conviction of a violation of subsection (a) such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one (1) year and by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00).

Come on Sean, nobody gets arrested for a pocket knife! Pulino’s chef Nate Appleman arrested for pocket knife.

These Florida pocket knife charges still go all the way to SCOTUS ever after the Florida Supreme court said that knives with a blade length of 3.75″ or less are common pocket knives. See Bunkley v. Florida, 538 US 835 – Supreme Court (2003)

This gives us a bad mix of a patchwork of local laws and people thinking that they have a license that lets them carry the weapons that the license it good for statewide. We need a preemption statute to cover our other carry weapons and knives.

Florida Carry had just started kicking around language for a bill when out of the blue, Florida Carry Board Member Richard Smith ran smack in to our friends at Knife Rights. They just passed knife preemption in Arizona and are looking for help the rest of the states.

Time for round two of the preemption fight in FL. Hold on tight, it’s gonna’ be a bumpy ride!

About:
Florida Open-Carry.org is a grass roots organization of Florida residents who endeavor to raise awareness in the community of our second amendment rights. Our primary goal is to help educate others about their right to legally open carry and advocate for repeal of the general ban on open carry in Florida. Florida is one of only seven states where open carry is generally illegal. Visit: www.open-carry.com

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

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries

Louisiana --(Ammoland.com)- Louisiana’s sales tax holiday provides a great opportunity to stock up and save on outdoor gear!

This weekend, the four percent state sales tax will be waved on the first $2,500 spent on individual items of tangible personal use.

The tax-free holiday begins at 12:01 a.m. Friday, August 5 and ends at 11:59 p.m. Saturday, August 6. Only state tax is exempt and all other sales taxes, such as parish taxes still apply.

The time is now for outdoor enthusiasts to gear up and save money on the items they want. A tax-free holiday provides a savings opportunity for the hunter to be properly outfitted, birdwatchers to get the correct optics and anglers to update their tackle box. Whether it’s hunting, fishing or outdoor photography equipment, it is all available for less this weekend.

Not only are items bought this weekend included but also items put on layaway during the holiday are eligible for the exemption. Items that are already in layaway can also be purchased this weekend and receive the tax credit.

Taking time to step outside with family and friends is beneficial for the body and mind. Getting outside provides physical benefits, such as aerobic, cardiovascular and muscular fitness. Mentally, it helps prevent or reduce stress, gives an increased sense of exhilaration and provides an adventure from everyday routines.

For more information on the tax-fee weekend go to the Louisiana Department of Revenue at http://revenue.louisiana.gov/sections/general/hottopics/salestaxholiday.aspx .

The Department of Wildlife and Fisheries is charged with managing and protecting Louisiana’s abundant natural resources. For more information, visit us at www.wlf.louisiana.gov on Facebook at www.facebook.com/ldwffb or follow us on Twitter @LDWF.

Ruger LC9 Lightweight Compact 9mm Pistol

Ruger Firearms

Southport, CT --(Ammoland.com)- Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. (NYSE: RGR) is proud to announce the Ruger LC9 has been named the 2011 Handgun of the Year by the Shooting Industry Academy of Excellence.

Ruger has received this honor four years in a row – an unprecedented accomplishment in the firearms industry. Ruger also received the “Rifle of the Year” award for the Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle, a second testament to the innovative design work at Ruger.

“The industry has once again recognized Ruger for the high-quality, innovative product designs that we have produced in direct response to our Voice of the Customer program,” said President and CEO Mike Fifer.

“Our top priority is to make the products our customers are asking for, and the LC9 and Gunsite Scout Rifle were designed on this premise. The fact that we have now won the Handgun of the Year award four consecutive years, and a record setting seven times total, demonstrates our transition to the leading American handgun manufacturer,” Fifer concluded.

“We could not be more pleased to have two of our firearms receive product of the year recognition,” said Vice President of Sales & Marketing Chris Killoy. “The Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle was created in conjunction with world-class training center Gunsite Academy and has proven to be a credible and affordable rendition of Col. Jeff Cooper’s Scout Rifle concept. We want to thank our retailers and other industry partners for this tremendous recognition.”

Ruger is especially honored that the Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle received this special recognition as this was the final firearm designed by Roy Melcher, one of the most prolific and talented designers the firearms industry has ever known. Over the years, Roy had made significant contributions to the Ruger product line, providing design guidance on the Mini-14®, Redhawk®, GP100®, 77/22®, M77® MKII, and P85®. Roy lost his battle with cancer in December 2010 and is greatly missed by his friends at Ruger and across the industry. Recognizing his final contribution to the firearms community with the “Rifle of the Year” award is a fitting tribute to a great designer.

The awards were presented during the 9th Annual Shooting Industry Masters on July 22-23, 2011 at the Rockcastle Shooting Center, Park Mammoth Resort in Park City, KY. The Academy, a 500-member group consisting of manufacturers, editors, writers, distributors and retailers from within the shooting industry, votes to honor outstanding achievements in product design and service to the industry.

For more information on the Ruger LC9 and Ruger Gunsite Scout Rifle, along with the extensive line of award-winning pistols, rifles, revolvers and shotguns, visit www.Ruger.com or Facebook.com/Ruger

AmmoLand Gun News

WASHINGTON, D.C. --(Ammoland.com)-  U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) today led 44 senators in expressing grave concern about the dangers posed to Second Amendment rights by the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty.

The 45 senators notified President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton of their intent to oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty that in any way restricts the rights of law-abiding American gun owners.

This is enough to block the treaty from Senate passage, as treaties submitted to the U.S. Senate require approval of two-thirds of Senators present to be ratified.

“Our country’s sovereignty and the rights of American citizens must not be infringed upon by the United Nations,” Sen. Moran said. “Today, the Senate sends a powerful message to the Obama Administration: an Arms Trade Treaty that does not protect ownership of civilian firearms will fail in the Senate. Our firearm freedoms are not negotiable.”

In the letter, the senators wrote: “As the treaty process continues, we strongly encourage your Administration to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership. These freedoms are not negotiable, and we will oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty presented to the Senate that in any way restricts the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens to manufacture, assemble, possess, transfer or purchase firearms, ammunition and related items.”

From the NRA. “As we have for the past 15 years, the NRA will fight to stop a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty that infringes on the Constitutional rights of American gun owners,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA Institute for Legislative Action.

“This letter sends a clear message to the international bureaucrats who want to eliminate our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. Clearly, a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that includes civilian arms within its scope is not supported by the American people or their elected U.S. Senators. Sen. Moran is a true champion of our freedom. We are grateful for his leadership and his tenacious efforts on this issue, as well as the 44 other senators who agree with the NRA’s refusal to compromise on our constitutional freedoms.”

In October of 2009 at the U.N. General Assembly, the Obama Administration reversed the previous Administration’s position and voted for the U.S. to participate in negotiating the Arms Trade Treaty, purportedly to establish “common international standards for the import, export, and transfer of conventional arms.” Preparatory committee meetings are now underway in anticipation of a conference in 2012 to finalize the treaty. A treaty draft has not yet been produced.

The letter was signed by U.S. Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), John Barrasso (R-WY), Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Scott Brown (R-MA), Richard Burr (R-NC), Dan Coats (R-IN), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Corker (R-TN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Dean Heller (R-NV), John Hoeven (R-ND), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), James Inhofe (R-OK), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mike Lee (R-UT), John McCain (R-AZ), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Rand Paul (R-KY), Rob Portman (R-OH), Jim Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), John Thune (R-SD), Pat Toomey (R-PA), David Vitter (R-LA), and Roger Wicker (R-MS).

The full text of the signed letter is below and the PDF version can be found here:

July 22, 2011
President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
2201 C St., NW
Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear President Obama and Secretary Clinton:

As defenders of the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, we write to express our grave concern about the dangers posed by the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty. Our country’s sovereignty and the constitutional protection of these individual freedoms must not be infringed.

In October of 2009 at the U.N. General Assembly, your administration voted for the U.S. to participate in negotiating this treaty. Preparatory committee meetings are now underway in anticipation of a conference in 2012 to finalize the treaty. Based on the process to date, we are concerned that the Arms Trade Treaty poses dangers to rights protected under the Second Amendment for the following reasons.

First, while the 2009 resolution on the treaty acknowledged the existence of “national constitutional protections on private ownership,” it placed the existence of these protections in the context of “the right of States to regulate internal transfers of arms and national ownership,” implying that constitutional protections must be interpreted in the context of the broader power of the state to regulate. We are concerned both by the implications of the 2009 resolution and by the hostility to private firearms ownership manifested by similar resolutions in previous years—such as the 2008 resolution, which called for the “highest possible standards” of control.

Second, your Administration agreed to participate in the negotiation only if it “operates under the rule of consensus decision-making.” Given that the 2008 resolution on the treaty was adopted almost unanimously—with only the U.S. and Zimbabwe in opposition—it seems clear that there is a near-consensus on the requirement for the “highest possible standards,” which will inevitably put severe pressure on the United States to compromise on important issues.

Third, U.N. member states regularly argue that no treaty controlling the transfer of arms internationally can be effective without controls on transfers inside member states. Any treaty resulting from the Arms Trade Treaty process that seeks in any way to regulate the domestic manufacture, assembly, possession, transfer, or purchase of firearms, ammunition, and related items would be completely unacceptable to us.

Fourth, reports from the 2010 Preparatory Meeting make it clear that many U.N. member states aim to craft an extremely broad treaty. A declaration by Mexico and other Central and South American countries, for example, called for the treaty to cover “All types of conventional weapons (regardless of their purpose), including small arms and light weapons, ammunition, components, parts, technology and related materials.” Such a broad treaty would be completely unenforceable, and would pose dangers to all U.S. businesses and individuals involved in any aspect of the firearms industry. At the 2010 Meeting, the U.S. representative twice expressed frustration with the wide-ranging and unrealistic scope of the projected treaty. We are concerned that these cautions will not be heeded, and that the Senate will eventually be called upon to consider a treaty that is so broad it cannot effectively be subject to our advice and consent.

Fifth, and finally, the underlying philosophy of the Arms Trade Treaty is that transfers to and from governments are presumptively legal, while transfers to non-state actors (such as terrorists and criminals) are, at best, problematic. We agree that sales and transfers to criminals and terrorists are unacceptable, but we will oppose any treaty that places the burden of controlling crime and terrorism on law-abiding Americans, instead of where it belongs: on the culpable member states of the United Nations who have failed to take the necessary steps to block trafficking that is already illegal under existing laws and agreements.

As the treaty process continues, we strongly encourage your Administration to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership. These freedoms are not negotiable, and we will oppose ratification of an Arms Trade Treaty presented to the Senate that in any way restricts the rights of law-abiding U.S. citizens to manufacture, assemble, possess, transfer or purchase firearms, ammunition, and related items.

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