Category Archives: AR-15

Anti-gun AGs Push “Universal” Background Checks for Ammunition

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Gun control laws aren’t about stopping violent criminals, they are about burdening law-abiding gun owners. Few pieces of legislation illustrate this fact better than H.R.1705/S.1924. READ MORE

ammo background checks

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

H.R.1705/S.1924 would extend anti-gun lawmakers’ cumbersome so-called “universal” background check proposal to cover the commercial and private transfers of ammunition. On September 23, this onerous plan received the support of 21 politically minded state attorneys general, who signed a letter to congressional leadership advocating for the proposal.

H.R.1705, introduced by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D-Fla.), would treat commercial sales of ammunition in the same manner as the commercial sale of firearms. Under the legislation, any person seeking to purchase ammunition at a store would be required to undergo an FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check before acquiring the ammunition.

Moreover, the legislation would encumber nearly all private transfers of ammunition. The bill provides,

“It shall be unlawful for any person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to transfer ammunition to any other person who is not so licensed, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the ammunition for the purpose of complying” with the NICS background check requirement.

The legislation provides a minor exemption for ammunition transfers between immediate family members. There are other narrow exemptions for transfers “at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting,” “while reasonably necessary for the purposes of hunting, trapping, or fishing,” or “while in the presence of the transferor.”

It is difficult to overstate how burdensome this policy would be for gun owners. Forcing all ammunition sales through a Federal Firearms Licensee would put non-FFL ammunition sellers out of business. This would severely curtail the availability of ammunition to the average gun owner. Gun owners would no longer be able to order ammo through the mail directly to their home, as they would need to have an FFL run a background check before taking possession of the ammunition.

Every law-abiding gun owner would be forced into a potentially lengthy background check procedure each time they purchased ammunition. A shooter couldn’t pick up a box of .22lr from his friend on the way to the range. A reloader couldn’t give a friend a new rifle load for them to try out on their own property.

This inconvenience is not a trivial matter. According to the 2018 NICS Operations Report, only 70 percent of NICS checks result in an instant determination, while 10 percent result in a significant delay. Only 1.2 percent of checks result in a denial.

Many individuals experience a delay for merely sharing a personal characteristic similar to that of someone with a potentially prohibiting record in NICS. FBI notes that “A delay response from the NICS Section indicates the subject of the background check has been matched with either a state or federal potentially prohibiting record containing a similar name and/or similar descriptive features (name, sex, race, date of birth, state of residence, social security number, height, weight, or place of birth).”

It is bad enough that such delays are so prevalent when Americans purchase firearms, which are a durable good. Extending this to ammunition sales, which occur with far more frequency because ammunition is a consumable good, would compound this injustice.

Despite being the top law enforcement officials in their respective states, it does not appear as if the anti-gun attorneys general know anything about existing federal gun laws. According to their letter to congress, the proposed legislation — would make it illegal for individuals who are already “prohibited purchasers” under federal law — including convicted felons, domestic abusers, and individuals with serious mental health conditions — from purchasing or possessing ammunition.

The attorneys general might find it interesting to learn that prohibited persons are already barred from purchasing or possessing ammunition. 18 USC 922(g) provides that it is unlawful for a prohibited person — to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

A prohibited person found in possession of a single round of ammunition faces up to 10 years imprisonment.

The attorneys general also appear unaware that the U.S. has already experimented with federal ammunition control. The Gun Control Act of 1968 required all ammunition dealers to be federally licensed. Moreover, the GCA required all ammunition dealers to keep a record of sales of — ammunition to any person unless the licensee notes in his records, required to be kept pursuant to section 923 of this chapter, the name, age, and place of residence of such person if the person is an individual…

The experiment was not a success.

In 1982 .22 caliber rimfire ammunition was removed from the record-keeping requirement. In 1984, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee concluded that ammunition dealer licensing “was not necessary to facilitate legitimate Federal law enforcement interests.” In 1986, the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms supported eliminating the record keeping requirement: “The Bureau and the [Treasury] Department have recognized that current recordkeeping requirements for ammunition have no substantial law enforcement value.” As a result, the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 repealed the ammunition restrictions.

Federal ammunition control is a proven failure. Of course, that’s if the goal was to prevent criminal violence.

The current legislation pushed by Wasserman Schultz and the attorneys general is aimed at harassing law-abiding gun owners to further burden the exercise of their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. If enacted, H.R.1705/S.1924 would achieve this detestable intent.

 

Colt Stops Civilian Sales Of The AR15

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Sorry, Beto — it had nothing to do with you! And it has nothing to do with gun control. READ MORE

colt logo

SOURCE: NBC News et al.

Last Thursday, Colt Manufacturing’s announced that it will no longer sell AR15 firearms to civilians. While many gun control advocates celebrated Colt’s decision as a victory, it had nothing to do with a shift in Americans’ attitudes toward assault rifles. The gun-maker said the decision is purely market-driven and made no mention of any public pressure. With poor civilian sales and a multimillion-dollar military contract, Colt’s announcement is strictly business rather than a signal.

In a statement posted on the company’s website Thursday, Colt’s CEO Dennis Veilleux explained that it was stopping production of civilian sporting rifles due to “significant excess manufacturing capacity” in that market and low consumer demand for Colt’s products. The company will instead shift production to fulfill “high volume” military and law enforcement contracts.

“Colt has been a stout supporter of the Second Amendment for over 180 years, remains so, and will continue to provide its customers with the finest quality firearms in the world,” Veilleux said. The CEO said the company would continue to supply consumers with pistols and revolvers and did not rule out returning to civilian production of rifles in the future. Colt reportedly has about 110 days of inventory in its distribution network. Its website lists all rifles as “out of stock.”

Shortly after Colt issued the statement, the Department of Defense announced a $41.9 million Army contract with the company to produce M4s for U.S. allies.

Of course, gun control celebrities celebrated what they ignorantly perceived as a victory.

Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke tweeted the news alongside an image of him as the National Rifle Association’s “AR-15 salesman of the month,” suggesting Colt’s decision reflected declining sales of the weapon. O’Rourke made waves in the last Democratic debate by saying he would take away Americans’ AR15s and AK-47s.

CHECK OUT THE TWEETS
@Beto O’Rourke
(Colt Firearms just announced they’re stopping production of AR-15s:

@NRA
Possibly even of the year…

March For Our Lives, the student movement founded after the Parkland, Florida high school massacre, tweeted about the news. “This is real life. We’re winning.”

Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action cited the “lack of public demand” for the AR-15 tweeting, “The @NRA’s #TrumpSlump is the gift that keeps on giving.”

In fact, despite one of the country’s oldest gun makers pulling out of the civilian rifle market, overall gun sales have increased in recent months and in recent years, so have the number of AR15 buyers and sellers.

Firearm sales have steadily risen in the past two years and last month manufacturers posted their second-best August on record, according to data from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).

According to a 2018 Gallup Poll, support for an assault weapons ban dropped in the years following the mass shooting in Las Vegas. The poll showed 40% favored a ban and 57% opposed it. The level of opposition was close to the 2016 record high of 61% of Americans who said they did not support a ban.

 

Meet the Woman Who Took on Beto O’Rourke

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

A Colorado woman challenged Beto O’Rourke’s gun confiscation plan at a town hall last week and the video went viral. READ MORE

beto challenged

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

NRA Member Lauren Boebert’s interaction with the presidential candidate was viewed more than 5 million times on NRA social media and was shared 190,000 times. Boebert was even featured on national news. The NRA sat down with Boebert for a Q&A. Here’s what she had to say.

Q. Millions of Americans watched you take on Beto O’Rourke at his gun control rally in Colorado. How did that come about?

A. In Colorado, our Second Amendment rights have been hit hard in the last decade. Politicians have been shaving off pieces of our Second Amendment with knee jerk reactions any time they can find an excuse to restrict us. When I heard Beto was coming to my state to push for more gun control, I knew I had to speak up.

Q. Were you scared?

A. Not scared, but intimidated because I was surrounded by people who disagreed with me. There were a couple of hundred people who didn’t want me there. But I had to put those fears aside, because who am I to lose that opportunity to speak on behalf of millions of Americans everywhere?

Q. What advice do you have for others who want to speak out in support of the Second Amendment?

A. It starts at home, in your community, and with the people you have relationships with. We must educate those around us and teach them that a firearm is for self-defense and protection.

Q. How did you go from growing-up in a gun-free home to being a passionate gun rights advocate?

A. A man was beat to death in the alley behind our restaurant, and I wondered how I would defend my employees if something like that were to happen to one of them. I knew we could not be defenseless.

Q. Final thoughts on what it takes to be a Second Amendment activist?

A. We are the silent majority and because we are so silent, it seems like we are the minority. It’s time that we rise up and speak up, we need to be heard. We’re not going to let Beto O’Rourke tell us how to defend ourselves. If politicians are so concerned with gun control, they need to start with the criminals. If they can make their gun control schemes work in Chicago, then maybe, we’ll listen. But we already know they’ve failed. Let Beto start his gun buy back scheme with criminals, then come talk to us.

See the full exchange HERE

 

Virginia Police Chief Advocates Ban on All Guns at U.S. House “Assault Weapons” Hearing

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Chief says: “I believe any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned.” READ MORE

gun ban

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

On Sept. 25, the Democrat-led U.S. House Judiciary Committee held a 3 ½ hour “hearing” entitled “Protecting America From Assault Weapons.” That framing of the issue underscored the erroneous notion that Americans need protection from inanimate objects, rather than from violent criminals who have and always will use any means at their disposal to harm innocent, defenseless people. It also revealed the unfortunate agenda of the proceedings, which was to emphasize politics and finger-pointing over any useful exploration of how Congress might take meaningful steps to improve public safety.

The most startling claim of the proceedings came when Dr. RaShall Brackney, Chief of the Charlottesville Police Department in Virginia responded to a question from Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) about whether she would support a ban on hunting rifles. “I believe any weapon that can be used to hunt individuals should be banned,” Brackney replied.

This admission seemed to indicate that Brackney would be open to the banning of any firearm — or even any weapon — whatsoever, since a criminal bent on “hunt[ing] individuals” could use virtually any firearm for that purpose.

Dr. Brackney was given two opportunities by pro-gun committee members to walk back or provide more context for that statement. Instead, she dug in and reiterated the statement.

Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) even asked her directly, “Okay, so you then stand for the proposition to ban any type of firearm, because any firearm can be used and misused to kill people.”

Rather than answering the question directly, Dr. Brackney began talking about police and the social contract. Rep. Steube tried asking again, only to be interrupted by an anti-gun committee member who tried to raise a point of order. She claimed that Rep. Steube was “attacking” the witness — when in fact he was merely trying to get a straight answer — and requested that he “tone down his words.” That exchange took up most of Steube’s remaining time for questioning, which was not reinstated.

Again, however, Rep. Steube tried, to clarify, asking, “Any type of weapon … that can be used to kill people should be banned?” “Sir,” Brackney replied, “you’re adding the word ‘type.’ I said ‘any weapons,’ so that’s my answer. Thank you.”

The entire exchange can be seen at this link, click HERE

Notably, none of the committee members or witnesses in favor of the ban attempted to distance themselves from Brackney’s push for a complete gun ban.

Unfortunately, Dr. Brackney’s statements may have been one of the only honest claims of the entire hearing by those arguing in favor of the ban.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a Harvard Law School graduate, told a breathtaking whopper about the U.S. Supreme Court’s pivotal Second Amendment decision, District of Columbia v. Heller. He claimed the decision says, “the Second Amendment gives you a right to a handgun for purposes of self-defense and a rifle for purposes of hunting or recreation, but nowhere does it give you a right to weapons of war … .”

The essence of the Heller decision is that Americans have a right to possess the sorts of bearable arms “in common use for lawful purposes,” particularly self-defense, and that handguns qualify because they are overwhelmingly chosen by responsible, law-abiding persons for that purpose. Notably, the decision does not purport to overturn the 1939 Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Miller, which held that the Second Amendment protection extends to arms that are “part of the ordinary military equipment” or the use of which “could contribute to the common defense.” It also notes that while Americans of the founding era might have owned firearms primarily for self-defense and hunting, the founders themselves wanted to ensure the Second Amendment provided an effective check against disarming the people, which in turn was necessary to “be able to resist tyranny.”

Nowhere does either decision suggest that rifles are only protected to the extent they are used for hunting or recreation. Indeed, Heller makes clear that self-defense is the “core lawful purpose” with which the Second Amendment is concerned.

Another theme pushed again and again was that “assault weapons” like the AR-15 are “battlefield weapons” that have no place on “America’s streets.”

Fortunately, as witness Amy Swearer testified, the overwhelmingly majority of the 16 million or so AR and AK pattern rifles in America are not “on the streets” but in the homes of law-abiding owners who never have and never will use them for anything other than lawful purposes. Violent criminals have not embraced semi-automatic rifles as their “weapons of choice.”

Rifles of all types, of which the guns that would be categorized as “assault weapons” are only a subset, are used in only 2% of homicides. In 2018, more than five times as many people were killed with knives than were killed with all rifles. The same year, more than twice as many people were killed with personal weapons like hands, fists, or feet.

When all was said and done, gun owners had no reassurance that there was any limiting principle to the anti-gun committee members’ prohibitive intentions or that they were willing to learn anything that would influence their decision-making. Indeed, one could imagine that long after semi-automatic rifles were banned, the exact same hearing could be held on the next class of firearm law-abiding gun owners would be forced to surrender because the guns were used in crimes they did not commit.

 

Slow and Steady Gun Control?

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

In an interview with Fox News anchor Ed Henry Thursday on new control measures being decided on in the coming weeks, President Trump said that negotiations on the issue are “going very slowly.”

Image result for trump guns

“No, we’re not moving on anything. We’re going very slowly in one way, because we want to make sure it’s right. We want to — we’re doing a very careful job,” Mr. Trump said.

If you’re nudged a few inches each time something happens, eventually you’ve been moved a mile. I’ve heard this for years, and always put stock in it. In 2019 it seems the trend may continue with more measures being taken by the current administration to impose some form of “common sense” gun control.

Image result for nudge

In the wake of two shootings in August, the Trump Administration began the process of working with warmed over gun control measures proffered in 2013 from senators Manchin and Toomey. The measures in question carry a stronger background check system, without calling for universal checks, but even this has been walked-back since it’s announcement. Attorney General Barr, and Senator Murphy are said to be in on the architecture of the new proposals expected to roll out after the United Nations General Assembly next week.

Image result for trump guns

In the Fox News interview, Mr. Trump also slammed Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, who has called for a ban on assault weapons and a mandatory buyback for any assault weapons currently possessed by gun owners.

Beto (honestly, what is a beto?) said in the previous debate, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” referring to his support for mandatory buybacks of war weapons {sic}.

Image result for beto o'rourke guns

“Part of the problem that we have is because of Beto O’Rourke’s statement about taking away guns,” Mr. Trump said. “A lot of Republicans and some Democrats now are afraid to do anything, to go down that slippery slope. A lot of people think this is just a way of taking away guns and that’s not good, because we’re not going to allow that.”

He went on to say “I am, if it’s not going to hurt a good, solid, great American citizen from keeping his weapon because they want that and they are entitled to that. We have a Second Amendment. I don’t want to have crazy people have guns. I don’t want to have bad people have guns, but we’re going to do nothing to hurt the Second Amendment, and what we want to do is see if we can come up with a compromise, and that’s what we’re working on.”

Here we stand, waiting with baited breath, for our current republican lead government to decide on yet another “nudge.” Until the root cause of the recent rash of shootings, stabbings, and other cruel acts of the mentally unstable are confronted, any act to diminish the rights of law abiding citizens is yet another inch we’ve been moved toward tighter restrictions on our Second Amendment right.

Is there a right answer? Is there a test? Is there an amount of freedom we’re willing to give up in order to ensure the wrong people don’t end up with a weapon capable of doing harm on a scale larger than hand to hand combat? Is it all or nothing? Keep it civil in the comments, but please feel free to discuss!

RELOADERS CORNER: Barrel Throat Erosion

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

How long does a barrel last? About 5 seconds. KEEP READING

throat erosion
Well, it’s hotter than this, but it’s flame cutting over time and distance, and hotter for longer is the issue.

Glen Zediker

As is by now common enough in this column I write, ideas for topics very often come from questions that are emailed to me. As always, I figure that if someone has a question they want answered, then others might also like to know the answer. This question was about barrel life and, specifically, this fellow had been reading some materials on the interweb posted by some misinformed folks on the topic of bullet bearing area and its influence on barrel life: “Is it true that using 110 gr. vs. a 150 gr. .308 bullet will extend barrel life because of its reduced bore contact?”

NO. Not because of that.

However! The answer is also YES, but here’s why…

Wear in a barrel is virtually all due to throat erosion. The throat is the area in a barrel that extends from the case neck area in the chamber to maybe 4 inches farther forward. Erosion is the result of flame-cutting, which is hot gas from propellant consumption eating into the surface of the barrel steel. Same as a torch. There is very little wear caused from passage of the bullet through the bore, from the “sides” of the bullet, from friction or abrasion. The eroding flame cutting is at or near the base of the bullet.

When the propellant is consumed and creates the flame, the burn is most intense closer to the cartridge case neck. There are a few influences respecting more or less effect from this flame cutting. Primarily, it’s bullet weight. Time is now the main factor in the effect of the flame cutting. Slower acceleration means a longer time for the more intense flame to do its damage.

The slower the bullet starts, and the slower it moves, the more flame cuts in a smaller area for a longer time.

Bullet bearing area, therefore, has an influence on erosion, but that’s because it relates to acceleration — greater area, more drag, slower to move.

The amount of propellant, and the propellant nature, do also influence rate of erosion. Some assume that since there’s more propellant behind a lighter bullet that would create more erosion, and that’s true, but that is also not as great a factor as bullet weight. Other things equal, clearly, more propellant is going to cut steel more than less propellant. A “lighter” load will have a decidedly good effect on barrel life.

throat erosion
It’s heavier bullets that have the most influence on shortening barrel life.

Heavier bullets, without a doubt, are a greater influence than any other single factor. “We” (NRA High Power Rifle shooters) always supposed that it was the number of rapid-fire strings we ran that ate up barrels the most, but that was until we started using heavier bullets and found out in short order that our barrels weren’t lasting as long. That was moving from a 70gr. to an 80gr. bullet.

The “nature” of propellant is a loose reference to the individual flame temperatures associated with different ones. There have been some claims of greater barrel life from various propellants, but, generally, a double-base will produce higher flame temperature.

Even barrel twist rate plays a role, and, again, it’s related to resistance to movement — slower start in acceleration. Same goes for coated bullets: they have less resistance and move farther sooner, reducing the flame effect just a little. And, folks, it’s always “just a little.” It adds up though.

There are bullet design factors that influence erosion. A steady diet of flat-base bullets will extend barrel life. There’s been a belief for years and years that boat-tail bullets increase the rate of erosion because of the way the angled area deflects-directs the flame. And that is true! However, it’s not a reason not to use boat-tails, just a statement. We use boat-tails because they fly better on down the pike, and, ultimately that’s a welcome trade for a few less rounds. An odd and uncommon, but available, design, the “rebated boat-tail” sort of splits the difference and will, indeed, shoot better longer (they also tend to shoot better after a barrel throat is near the end of its life).

The effects or influences of barrel throat erosion are numerous, but the one that hurts accuracy the most is the steel surface damage. It gets rough, and that abrades the bullet jacket. The throat area also gets longer, and that’s why it’s referred to as “pushing” the throat.

The roughness can’t much be done about. There are abrasive treatments out there and I’ve had good luck with them. Abrasive coated bullets run through after each few hundred rounds can help to smooth the roughness, but then these also contribute their share to accelerated wear. I guess then it’s not so much a long life issue, but a quality of life issue. I do use these on my competition rifles.

lnl gage
Use the Hornady LNL O.A.L. gage to record and then track barrel throat wear. This isn’t technically a “throat erosion gage,” which do exist, but I’ve found it an easy and reliable way to keep up with an advancing throat. As the seating depth gets longer, it’s indicating how far the throat is advancing. Get one HERE 

Keeping in mind that the throat lengthens as erosion continues, using something like the Hornady LNL tool shown often in these pages can let bullet seating depth that touches the lands serve as a pretty good gage to determine the progress of erosion. On my race guns, I’ll pull the barrel when it’s +0.150 greater than it was new. Some say that’s excessively soon, and a commonly given figure from others in my circle is +0.250. One reason I pull sooner is that I notice a fall-off in accuracy sooner than that since I’m bound by a box magazine length for my overall cartridge length for magazine-fed rounds with shorter bullets, and I’m already starting with a fairly long throat (“Wylde” chamber cut). And another is because gas port erosion is having some effect on the bullet also by that number of rounds. Which now leads into the “big” question.

So, then, how long does a barrel last? Get out a calculator and multiply how many rounds you get before pulling a barrel by how long each bullet is in the barrel and barrels don’t really last very long at all! At full burn, maybe 4-6 seconds, some less, or a little more.

Another misgiven “fact” I see running rampant is associated with comparing stainless steel to chromemoly steel barrels for longevity. Stainless steel barrels will, yes, shoot their best for more rounds, but, chromemoly will shoot better for an overall longer time. Lemmeesplain: the difference is in the nature of the flame cutting effect on these two steels. Stainless tends to form cracks, looking like a dried up lakebed, while chromemoly tends to just get rough, like sandpaper. The cracks provide a little smoother surface for the bullet to run on (until they turn into something tantamount to a cheese grater). The thing is that when stainless stops shooting well it stops just like that. So, stainless will go another 10 to 15 percent more x-ring rounds, but chromemoly is liable to stay in the 10-ring at least that much longer than stainless steel.

throat erosion
Stainless steel barrels keep their “gilt-edge” accuracy for about 15% more rounds, but hit the wall head-on and in a big way when they reach their limit. Chromemoly steel tends to open up groups sooner, but also maintains “decent” accuracy for a longer time, by my experience — the groups open more slowly.

Do barrel coatings have an effect? Some. A little. I’ve yet to see one that made a significant difference, or at least commensurate with its extra expense. Chrome-lined barrels do, yes, tend to last longer (harder surface), but they also tend not to shoot as well, ever. Steel hardness factors, but most match barrels are made from pretty much the same stuff.

The preceding is a specially-adapted excerpt from Glen’s book Top-Grade Ammo. Available HERE at Midsouth Shooters Supply. Visit ZedikerPublishing.com for more information on the book itself, and also free article downloads.

Cruz Criticizes PolitiFact for Claiming O’Rourke Doesn’t Plan to ‘Take Our Guns’

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke are not pals, and Ted calls it how he sees it. Check out the links in this post and see what Beto says, and what Beto means, for yourself. READ MORE

beto shirt

SOURCE: National Review, by Mairead McArdle

Texas senator Ted Cruz took aim at fact-checking website PolitiFact last Friday, criticizing the site for having previously claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke does not plan to “take our guns” after O’Rourke explicitly suggested otherwise at last Thursday night’s Democratic debate.

“When we see that being used against children . . . hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” O’Rourke said from the debate stage when asked if he was proposing that the government confiscate legally owned assault-style weapons. “We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.”

See VIDEO HERE

@BetoORourke
Hell yeah, we’re going to take your AR-15. If it’s a weapon that was designed to kill people on the battlefield, we’re going to buy it back.

@tedcruz
Just a reminder, when I said it, PolitiFact (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the DNC) rated “Beto wants to take our guns” as FALSE. Maybe they should buy one of his new t-shirts..

In March, PolitiFact fact-checked a line from a Cruz campaign song that accused O’Rourke of wanting to “open borders and . . . take our guns,” awarding it a “false” rating.

“We saw no language authorizing or directing officials to take existing guns,” PolitiFact said of a failed House measure backed by O’Rourke, which would ban the future sale of AR-15s.

“My intent is for AR-15s not to be sold to the public,” O’Rourke told the fact-checking outlet.

See what PolitiFact has to say and judge for yourself.

 

Beto O’Rourke: We’ll Use Fines to ‘Compel’ Compliance with AR-15 Ban

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Robert “Beto” O’Rourke explained he plans to use fines to “compel” American gun owners to comply with his AR-15 ban, during an exchange with reporters last weekend. READ MORE

beto

SOURCE: Breitbart News, AWR Hawkins

O’Rourke made his claim in a video posted by Fox4 DFW’s Teresa Riley.

He was asked how he plans to make Americans comply with his AR-15 ban and he said, “I begin by saying we expect our fellow Americans to follow the law. If they do not there would be a fine imposed to compel them to follow the law.”

Teresa Riley
@TeresaRFox4
Question: what happens if people don’t sell their guns back to the govt….answer:

See the video HERE

O’Rourke went to talk about the example of Australia, citing how that country put in place a similar ban. He claimed Australia witnessed, “a near 50 percent reduction in gun violence deaths” as a result. But O’Rourke did not mention that rifles are not a statistically significant contributor to overall gun deaths in the U.S.

In fact, FBI crime stats for 2017 show there were 403 rifle-related deaths for the year, and those deaths were from all kinds of rifles combined — breech action, pump action, bolt action, lever action, semiautomatic, etc. Crossing the street resulted in over 5,800 deaths in 2017.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation reports there are 16 million-plus privately owned AR-15s in the U.S.

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange HERE.

 

 

Trump Will NOT Support Universal Background Check Bill

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

The latest (early this week) reports indicate that President Trump will not support H.R. 8. READ MORE

trump

SOURCE: Brietbart, AWR Hawkins

President Donald Trump is reportedly not planning to include House Democrats’ universal background check bill as part of legislation he supports in response to mass shootings.

The Democrat gun control bill is H.R. 8.

Politico reports that a source familiar with the White House “conversation on guns” indicated that Trump is not going to rally behind H.R. 8.

On September 9, 2019, Breitbart News reported that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) asked Trump to support H.R. 8, thereby giving “political cover” to allow other Republicans to support it.

Schumer said, “President Trump has an historic opportunity to save lives by indicating his support for the House-passed bill [H.R. 8]. Speaker Pelosi and I have repeatedly and personally asked him to do this.”

He added, “[President Trump] can lead his party to support something that the NRA has prevented Republicans from supporting for years. That is why Speaker Pelosi and I sent the letter to him today, urging him to give his party political cover to pass … [the] background check legislation.”

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) spoke in favor of Trump’s reported rejection of universal background checks, saying, “The things that [the Democrats] are proposing just aren’t realistic and they know that and so it’s designed more to talk to their political base and it’s a lot more about that than I think an actual solution.”

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. Sign up to get Down Range HERE

Wal-Mart Expands Their Anti-Gun Agenda

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

What the absolute heck is Wal-Mart doing? Once a proud symbol of American Capitalism, and the face of big-box retail, Wal-Mart continues to alienate it’s base of consumers with another knee-jerk reaction prodded by woke-troopers and social justice warriors.

wal-mart ammo

by Midsouth Shooters

Wal-Mart has been steadily rolling back their support of the Second Amendment since 1993 when they stopped the sale of all handguns in every state except Alaska. Then, in 2015 it ended the sale of AR-15 style MSR rifles, and any toy or airgun resembling any “military-style rifle used in mass shootings,” per the published Wal-Mart policy. Last year, it raised the minimum age for gun purchases from 18 to 21, two weeks after 17 students and teachers were killed in a shooting at a high school in Parkland, FL.

Just this past week, Wal-Mart rolled out another set of policies after the recent shooting at a Wal-Mart Super Center in El Paso, TX. The shooting resulted in 22 deaths and 24 injuries. Patrick Crusius, a 21-year-old from Allen TX, was arrested shortly after the shooting and charged with capital murder. Police believe he published a document, described by others as a white nationalist, anti-immigrant manifesto, on 8chan shortly before the attack, citing inspiration from that year’s Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand.

Wal-Mart CEO, Doug McMillon was quoted as saying:

“After selling through our current inventory commitments, we will discontinue sales of short-barrel rifle ammunition such as the .223 caliber and 5.56 caliber that, while commonly used in some hunting rifles, can also be used in large capacity clips on military-style weapons,” Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said in a memo to employees on Tuesday.

Wal-Mart has also stated in it’s newly minted policy they will no longer sell handgun ammo. McMillon previously said Walmart was responsible for 2% of firearm sales in the US and 20% of ammunition sales. Walmart expects its share of ammunition sales to drop to between 6% and 9% as a result of the newly announced changes. The company will continue to sell the shotguns and rifles that it carries.

“In a complex situation lacking a simple solution, we are trying to take constructive steps to reduce the risk that events like these will happen again,” McMillon said in a memo to employees on Tuesday. “The status quo is unacceptable.”

Another rider on the new Wal-Mart policy affects customers who open-carry in their stores. If shoppers openly carry guns into Walmart stores going forward, store managers may ask the shopper to leave and safely secure their gun in their vehicle before returning to the store. “The policies will vary by location, however, and shoppers who are openly carrying guns may not always be asked to leave the store,” a Walmart spokesman said.

“We encourage our nation’s leaders to move forward and strengthen background checks and to remove weapons from those who have been determined to pose an imminent danger,” McMillon said. “We do not sell military-style rifles, and we believe the reauthorization of the Assault Weapons ban should be debated to determine its effectiveness.”

In the days since the new policies have taken effect, Kroger, and it’s holdings have also announced their plans to cease the sale of handgun ammunition.

It’s the belief of this writer the precedent set here is a slippery, if not inherently dangerous one. Capitalism is the lifeblood of any strong economy, and works hand-in-hand with a strong republic, but allowing a company to be swayed by social temperature is inherently dangerous, not only for the company, but the population at large.

In a quote from 2007, Jason Hornady of Hornady Ammunition said, “As long as a Hornady is at Hornady, we will never sell direct to Wal-Mart. They are no friend of the industry.”

Midsouth Shooters was founded on the tenants of honesty, family, and fairness, rooted in American and God. For a company, or organization, to be swayed by knee-jerk reactions sets a precedent of allowing the mob to dictate overreaching policies which put many in harms way. Effectively, Wal-Mart has been bullied into cow-towing to the social justice warriors, and woke-ninjas in the vocal minority.

Wal-Mart may not sell the ammo you need, and more companies beholden to the pressure of the vocal minority may follow suit. Midsouth will continue to sell the ammunition and reloading supplies you need, regardless. Our Second Amendment right is a sacred right, and for you to protect your family with the tools available, you need access to fairly priced ammunition and firearms.