Category Archives: Gun Rights

Never Enough: New Zealand Government Pushes Even More Gun Control

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

In the wake of a failed ban and confiscate measure now there’s a proposed national registry to get it going again… READ MORE

new zealand gun ban

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

On July 22, New Zealand’s Labour-led government announced a wide array of new gun control proposals. The move came amidst the island nation’s ongoing program to confiscate commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms from law-abiding gun owners that will last through December 20. The government’s most recent attack on gun owners is likely to engender further civil disobedience to the firearm confiscation scheme.

In March, following a high-profile shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern moved to ban and confiscate several types of commonly-owned firearms. The “Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and Parts) Amendment Regulations 2019” was enacted in early April and, according to a summary from the New Zealand Police, prohibits the following —

All semi-automatic firearms (including semi-automatic shotguns), but:
Excluding rimfire rifles .22 calibre or less as long as they have a magazine (whether detachable or not) that holds 10 rounds or less; and
Excluding semi-automatic shotguns that have a non-detachable, tubular magazine that holds 5 rounds or less.
Pump action shotguns that:
Are capable of being used with a detachable magazine; or
Have a non-detachable tubular magazine capable of holding more than 5 rounds.

Moreover, the legislation prohibits rifle magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, shotgun magazines capable of holding more than 5 rounds of ammunition, and a host of semi-automatic firearm parts and accessories. Those in possession of the newly prohibited firearms are required to modify them to comply with the Arms Amendment or surrender them at a “collection event” for a predetermined compensation price.

Soon after enacting the new prohibition, some in law enforcement and the gun control community expressed concerns that the government had missed a crucial step in the civilian disarmament process — firearms registration. At present, prospective gun owners must acquire a firearms license. However, only pistols and a small subset of long guns are required to be registered.

This lack of a registry has frustrated the government’s ability to ensure compliance with their firearm confiscation effort. Addressing this issue, New Zealand Police Association President Chris Cahill complained in May, “We really have no idea how many of these firearms are out there in New Zealand… Which really points to how bad our firearms legislation has been, that we have let this get out of control.” Gun Control NZ co-founder Philippa Yasbek whined to the Washington Post, “These weapons are unlikely to be confiscated by police because they don’t know of their existence… These will become black-market weapons if their owners choose not to comply with the law and become criminals instead.”

According to a July 22 press release from Ardern and Minister of Police Stuart Nash, comprehensive firearms registration is the government’s top firearms legislative priority.

Given the government’s recent course of action, one might reasonably wonder how successful such a registration plan would be. Kiwi gun owners are now on notice that their government will confiscate firearms and that a registry would facilitate this task. Gun owners who register their firearms would possess their guns at the temporary pleasure of a state that has demonstrated a willingness to dispossess them of their property at a moment’s notice.

Ardern and Stuart’s message only provided the broad outlines of the government’s legislative proposals, noting that the full legislation would be released in August. The proposed restrictions encumber every aspect of gun ownership in New Zealand. The release stated that the legislation would do the following,

Establish a register of firearms and licence holders to be rolled out over 5 years

Tighten the rules to get and keep a firearms licence

Tighten the rules for gun dealers to get and keep a licence

Require licences to be renewed every five years

Introduce a new system of warning flags so Police can intervene and seek improvement if they have concerns about a licence holder’s behaviour

Prohibit visitors to New Zealand from buying a gun
Establish a licensing system for shooting clubs and ranges for the first time

Set up a new formal group to give independent firearms advice to Police, which will include people from within and outside the gun-owning community

Provide for new controls on firearms advertising

Require a licence to buy magazines, parts and ammunition
Increase penalties and introduce new offences

Enshrine in law that owning a firearm is a privilege and comes with an obligation to demonstrate a high level of safety and responsibility

Aside from the registration requirement, the most concerning proposal is the expansion of subjective government discretion in the firearm licensing process.

A document accompanying the press release titled, “Arms Amendment Bill: Q+As,” made clear just how intrusive the new licensing requirements could be. The Q+A stated that “Police will have a wider range of powers to intervene using a range of compliance and enforcement measures.” Moreover, the legislation will deputize medical officials to infringe gun rights. The document explained, “Health practitioners will have a new responsibility to notify Police if they believe a licence holder should not use a firearm.” The paper cited “gambling addiction” as a circumstance that could disqualify an individual from licensure.

The Q+A also elaborated on the “warning flags being built in to the licensing system.” The paper noted, “Behaviour that will raise flags includes encouraging or promoting violence, hatred or extremism…” In other words, the New Zealand government would be the arbiter of acceptable speech and political opinion and permit the exercise of firearms rights dependent upon an individual’s conformance with their dictates. A prospective or current firearms licensee might also earn a “warning flag” for the nebulous offense of “showing disregard for others property or land.”

In he and Ardern’s press release, Nash is quoted as stating, “Owning a gun is a privilege, not a right.” This is incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms is an extension of the natural right to self-defense and is therefore inherent to all people and not dependent upon a government for its existence. Governments may fail to recognize the right, but have no power to eliminate it.

Some American politicians share Nash’s view of gun rights and many share Ardern’s zeal to control her population through firearms restrictions. Americans should pay careful attention to the New Zealand government’s actions as it provides important insight into the goals and mindset of the Second Amendment’s domestic political adversaries.

 

Governor Abbott Signs 10 Pro-Second-Amendment Bills into Law

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Texas Governor puts 10 NRA-supported laws into effect. READ MORE

texas flag

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

New Laws Will Take Effect on September 1

Governor Greg Abbott has now signed all of the NRA-supported legislation which the Texas Legislature sent him during the 2019 session. Thank you to pro-Second Amendment leaders and lawmakers in the House and Senate for their work to ensure passage of these measures. Here is the list of NRA-backed bills which will become law on September 1:

House Bill 121 by Rep. Valoree Swanson (R-Spring) & Sen. Brandon Creighton (R-Conroe) provides a legal defense for License To Carry holders who unknowingly enter establishments with 30.06 or 30.07 signs, as long they promptly leave when verbally informed of the policy.

House Bill 302 by Rep. Dennis Paul (R-Houston) & Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) prohibits “no firearms” clauses in future residential lease agreements and protect tenants’ rights to possess lawfully-owned firearms and ammunition in dwelling units and on manufactured home lots, and to transport their guns directly between their personal vehicles and these locations.

House Bill 1143 by Rep. Cole Hefner (R-Mount Pleasant) & Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) prevents school districts from effectively prohibiting the possession of firearms in private motor vehicles by limiting their authority to regulate the manner in which they are stored in locked cars and trucks — including by employees.

House Bill 1177 by Rep. Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont) & Sen. Brandon Creighton (R-Conroe) protects citizens from being charged with a crime for carrying a handgun without a License To Carry while evacuating from an area during a declared state or local disaster, or while returning to that area, and allows shelters which are otherwise prohibited locations to decide whether to accommodate evacuees with firearms in their possession.

House Bill 1791 by Rep. Matt Krause (R-Fort Worth) & Sen. Pat Fallon (R-Prosper) closes loopholes in the state’s “wrongful exclusion” law that cities, counties and state agencies have been using to restrict License To Carry holders in government buildings.

House Bill 2363 by Rep. Cody Harris (R-Palestine) & Sen. Brian Birdwell (R-Granbury) allows foster parents to store firearms in a safe and secure manner while making them more readily accessible for personal protection purposes. ?

House Bill 3231 by Rep. Travis Clardy (R-Nacogdoches) & Sen. Pat Fallon (R-Prosper) improves and modernizes the state’s firearms preemption law, curbs the ability of municipalities to abuse their zoning authority and circumvent state law to restrict the sale or transfer of firearms and ammunition at the local level, and allows the State Attorney General to recover reasonable expenses incurred when obtaining injunctions against localities which violate the preemption statute.

Senate Bill 535 by Sen. Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels) & Rep. Dan Flynn (R-Van) strikes “churches, synagogues, or other places of worship” from the list of prohibited locations in the Penal Code, clarifying that these places have the same right enjoyed by nearly all other controllers of private property in the state to decide whether to allow License To Carry holders on their premises.

Senate Bill 741 by Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) & Rep. Brooks Landgraf (R-Odessa) prohibits a property owners’ association from including or enforcing a provision in a dedicatory instrument that prohibits, restricts, or has the effect of prohibiting or restricting any person who is otherwise authorized from lawfully possessing, transporting, or storing a firearm.

Senate Bill 772 by Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) & Rep. Drew Springer (R-Muenster) provides civil liability protection to business establishments which choose not to post 30.06/30.07 signs, making them less vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits and giving them an incentive to adopt permissive policies for the carrying of handguns by law-abiding citizens on their premises.

Lastly, there’s been a lot of coverage in the media lately about the state’s role in promoting gun safety and the following rider that was included in the state budget bill, which was also signed into law by Governor Abbott and which NRA did not oppose:

Statewide Safe Gun Storage Campaign. (Department of Public Safety) $500,000 in fiscal year 2020 and $500,000 in fiscal year 2021 in General Revenue to establish and promote a statewide safe gun storage campaign. The public awareness campaign shall begin no later than September 1, 2020. The public awareness campaign may include online materials, printed materials, public service announcements, or other advertising media. The public awareness campaign may not convey a message that it is unlawful under state law to keep or store a firearm that is loaded or that is readily accessible for self-defense.

NRA supported the award of a $1 million grant from the State of Texas to the National Shooting Sports Foundation for the distribution of Project ChildSafe firearms safety kits to Texas residents through a network of law enforcement and community partners. We appreciate Governor Abbott’s recognition of NSSF’s expertise in firearms safety and his effort to bring this proven and effective safety program, which is free of anti-gun rhetoric and bias, to Texas residents.

 

A Pair of Academics Question Gun Control Orthodoxy

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

One advantage “academics” have is that they are smart enough to see the truth, when they can speak it. READ MORE

gun ban

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Given that so much gun policy research is explicitly funded by individuals hostile to our right to keep and bear arms, gun owners are right to be skeptical of academics who delve into the topic. However, there are times when well-respected academics have proven confident enough to challenge the prevailing left-wing orthodoxies on gun control. Such is the case with recent pieces from Northeastern University Professor of Criminology, Law, and Public Policy James Alan Fox and Harvard Kennedy School of Government Research Fellow Thomas Abt.

In a July 23 item for USA Today, Fox pondered why a recent mass killing in Kyoto, Japan did not garner significant attention in the U.S. media. On July 18, a man entered the Kyoto Animation studio and doused parts of the building with an accelerant and screamed “drop dead” or “die!” The individual then set the building ablaze. The resulting fire killed 34 people and injured more than thirty. According to a BBC report, the attack was “one of Japan’s worst mass casualty incidents since World War Two.”

A reasonable person might have expected such a heinous attack perpetrated in a notoriously peaceful country to get the attention of the press, but as Fox explained, the “Kyoto Animation arson killings didn’t get much attention because we couldn’t demonize guns.”

Comparing coverage of the Kyoto massacre to the March shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand, Fox noted, “U.S. newspapers and wire services featured the Christchurch massacre five times as much as the Kyoto mass murder.” Fox went on to explain that a significant portion of massacres are carried out with weapons other than firearms and that “It is the politics and controversy surrounding gun control that highlight mass shootings above the rest.”

In short, if a mass casualty event doesn’t fit a preconceived political narrative and policy prescription the media does not consider it worth covering.

In closing, Fox pointed out,
Whatever the reason, the lesser attention given to mass killings that do not invoke guns is disrespectful to the victims whose lives are tragically cut short. Is the crime any less serious if there were no gunshots? Are the victims any less dead? In fact, victims of burns, suffocation or stabbing often suffer a much slower and painful death than gunshot victims.

It is surely fruitless to assess the relative severity of mass killings on the basis of weaponry. Our sense of outrage and concern for the victims should be the same whether they died from a firearm or fire.

Fox is not pro-gun, but has long served as a voice of reason in the hysterical aftermath of high-profile shootings. Since 2012, Fox has repeatedly made the case that common gun control proposals, such as so-called “universal” background checks and semi-automatic firearm bans, are unlikely to curtail high-profile shooting incidents.

In a 2018 research piece titled, “Schools are safer than they were in the 90s, and school shootings are not more common than they used to be,” Fox provided concrete data for his conclusion that “there is not an epidemic of school shootings.” Pouring cold water on the gun control policies advocated in the wake of school shootings, Fox noted, “The thing to remember is that these are extremely rare events, and no matter what you can come up with to prevent it, the shooter will have a workaround.”

In a July 19 piece for the Boston Globe, titled, “Democrats are skipping out on the most important gun fight of all,” Abt took issue with the 2020 Democratic presidential field’s approach to violence perpetrated with firearms. After citing some of the candidates’ gun control proposals, such as a national gun licensing scheme and semi-automatic firearm confiscation, Abt noted, “the candidates are still failing to focus on what is simultaneously the most serious and most solvable form of such violence: shootings and killings on the streets of our cities.”

High-profile shootings garner significant media and political attention, but as Abt pointed out, “Urban violence accounts for the overwhelming majority of homicides in the United States.” Moreover, this urban violence is highly concentrated and necessitates targeted strategies.

Abt explained,
because urban violence concentrates among a small number of people and places, strategies that target those concentrations tend to work best. In most medium to large cities, violent crime clusters among a few hundred individuals and a few dozen micro-locations known as “hot spots.” Less than 1 percent of a city’s population and less than 5 percent of its geography will generate the majority of its lethal or near-lethal encounters.

The researcher went on to promote a handful of targeted law enforcement and social policies that could alleviate the problem without resorting to broad gun controls. Highlighting one problem with the effort to tackle urban violence, Abt wrote, “Mass shootings account for less than 1 percent of all gun deaths annually, yet they dominate the debate on gun violence and distort the search for solutions.”

Abt’s recognition that firearms homicides are highly concentrated is not novel, but is an underappreciated fact of the gun control debate. A 2010 article for the Journal of Quantitative Criminology by Northeastern University Criminology Professor Anthony Braga, titled, “The Concentration and Stability of Gun Violence at Micro Places in Boston, 1980–2008” found that,

Recent advances in criminological research suggest that there is significant clustering of crime in micro places, or ‘hot spots,’ that generate a disproportionate amount of criminal events in a city… We find that Boston gun violence is intensely concentrated at a small number of street segments and intersections rather than spread evenly across the urban landscape between 1980 and 2008.

A 2015 piece for the Hartford Courant by then-Yale Ph.D. candidate and current Assistant Professor at Rutgers University Michael Sierra-Arévalo explained,
The concentration is not just in terms of place, but also people. It’s a tiny handful of the community that’s responsible for the lion’s share of the bloodshed. Turning to Boston again, in the period between the mid-1990s and mid-2000s, more than half of all murders, more than three-quarters of youth homicides and 70 percent of all shootings were perpetrated by 1 percent of youth between the ages of 15 and 24.

One percent.

Citing the work of his Yale colleagues, Sierra-Arévalo added, “As shown by Yale University sociologists in a recent study, 70 percent of all shootings in Chicago can be located in a social network composed of less than 6 percent of the city’s population.”

This recognition that a significant portion of firearm homicides take place within a small geographic area and fraction of the population suggests that policies narrowly targeted at problem areas and social networks is a more appropriate approach to curbing violence than sweeping gun controls that restrict the rights of the population at large.

Like Fox, not all of Abt’s positions are laudable. The researcher expressed passing support for so-called “universal” background checks and a semi-automatic firearm ban, both of which have been shown to be ineffective. Moreover, in the Boston Globe piece the academic took an unnecessary and clumsy swipe at President Donald Trump.

Despite these shortcomings, Fox and Abt’s more reasoned analyses of the gun issue expose the gulf between the haphazard rhetoric and policies peddled by gun control advocates and what might emerge from a more thoughtful approach to curbing violent crime.

 

How to Evacuate Fast With Your Guns

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

If you have to leave a crisis area in a hurry, you need to be prepared to take your guns along with you. If not, you just might lose them… READ MORE

Jason Hanson

As you may remember, about a week after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans…

Local police went door-to-door evacuating residents.

During evacuations, police confiscated guns so they wouldn’t face armed resistance during the forced evacuation.

As P. Edwin Compass III, superintendent of the New Orleans police stated…

“No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns, or other firearms of any kind. Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons.”

Unbelievable.

Fast forward to Florida in 2017 and we witnessed Hurricane Irma hitting the Florida Keys as a Category 4 hurricane and causing massive devastation through the southern U.S.

At least 92 people died throughout the U.S. in relation to Hurricane Irma and more than 9.2 million suffered power outages.

One of the many differences in the response to these two storms was that Floridians were allowed to carry concealed weapons, even if they didn’t have a permit to do so.

In 2015, then Governor Rick Scott signed a law that allows citizens without a concealed carry permit to carry concealed for 48-hours during a mandatory evacuation as they transport their families and belongings from the path of the storm.

Under the law, “People who may legally possess a firearm may carry concealed or carry on or about the person while ‘in the act of evacuating’ under a mandatory evacuation order during a declared state of emergency.”

This law is a no brainer.

When you are given an order to evacuate, you are going to take your family, survival gear, a few valuables, and your guns.

The last thing you want to do is leave a bunch of guns to get flooded or for looters to steal.

One of the best ways to evacuate with your guns during an emergency is to use a quality range bag.

These can obviously serve multiple purposes such as daily use at the range, but they are also important to have packed up and ready to go at a moments notice.

Considering how critical a range bag could be I want to share with you a few different options when it comes to bags.

5.11 Tactical Range Bag. 5.11 is a major player in the tactical gear market. This bag is capable of packing a lot of gear and you can tell it’s been designed by shooters.511 tactical bag
Excluding the main pouch, you get five pouches on the outside of the bag including a large pouch with eight pistol magazine pouches that can hold eight double stack mags or 16 single stack mags.

In addition, there is a divider that is perfect for storing your handguns.

The remaining four pouches are a little smaller but capable of storing ammo boxes or even a set of full earmuffs. The 5.11 Tactical Range Bag sells for $100.

G.P.S. Tactical Range Bag. The G.P.S. range bag is a backpack style bag instead of the common duffle bag style.

gps range bag

The biggest advantage to this design is going to be for evacuating or bugging out since you can easily throw this pack on your back.

The bag is made of Cordura Nylon with DuPont Teflon and features a military style triple stitched MOLLE system.

The main compartment is large and comes with a divider so you can separate your gear.

It also has two pockets for smaller items like a flashlight, phone, etc. The G.P.S. bag sells for around $130.

Case Club Tactical 4-Pistol. This bag is another backpack style that can carry at least four handguns. Plus, it has twin side pockets to store six extra magazines each, along with other gear.

case club tactical bag

It includes a pullout rain cover that protects gear in case of a sudden downpour and built-in Molle straps allow you to attach extra gear.

For security, it has lockable heavy-duty zippers for the gun compartment and thick moisture-wicking padding on the backpack straps. The Case Club sells for $100 on Amazon.

If you’re like me and have several handguns, you need to plan ahead for a way to safely transport them to the range or out of town during an emergency.

One of these bags would be a great choice and they are small enough you could have them loaded and ready to go 24/7 while storing them in a large safe.

During a fire or last-minute evacuation, you will want to be able to grab this bag and get to safety as quickly as possible.

Check out Midsouth tactical bags HERE

Jason Hanson is a former CIA Officer and New York Times bestselling author of Spy Secrets That Can Save Your Life. To get a free copy of his book, visit HERE

 

5 Lessons On Flying With Handguns

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

The skies aren’t always so friendly around the ticketing and security areas at an airport, but you do have the right and choice to take a gun along with you. Make sure you’re prepared! READ MORE

airport

SOURCE: Springfield-Armory Armory Life, article by James Tarr

Yes, you can bring firearms on your flight. How much of a hassle it is depends on your pre-flight preparedness. I hate flying, for a number of reasons (I hate crowds, I hate lines, I hate having to take off my pistol and trust my safety to people less skilled, etc.), but that still doesn’t stop me from getting on planes at least half a dozen times a year. Most of the time I do fly with firearms in my checked baggage, and over the years I have learned a few tricks that may ease your travels.

Check the Rules
While the TSA does not limit the number of firearms you can have in your checked baggage, I know of at least one airline that does. Every airline has a website with their specific rules on transportation of firearms and ammunition – check it. Basically, the firearm must be unloaded and in a locked case and declared during the ticket counter check-in process. I recommend acting professional, polite (as if you’ve checked guns dozens of times before), and like it’s no big deal, because it shouldn’t be. A smile will get you checked in quicker and with less problems than an attitude.

Locked Case
Simply having a padlock on your case isn’t good enough for the TSA. They want to make sure that the lock prevents access to the gun inside, and I have had agents undo the latches on my gun case and attempt to pry it open wide enough to pull the gun out. This is surprisingly easy with some rifle cases (I recommend a padlock at each end), and even some handgun cases. Don’t be gentle when you test your cases, because the TSA agents won’t be. I know one gun writer whose rifle cases were destroyed by TSA agents using pipes as crowbars, and then told he couldn’t fly with them because his rifle cases would no longer securely lock. What this has to do with combating terrorism I’m a little fuzzy on.

Although regulations don’t require it, I always put my locked pistol case inside a locked piece of luggage, and I’ve had TSA cut the padlock off the luggage just to get a look at the pistol case. Why? I have no idea.

Currently, when I am just travelling with a pistol or two, I put them in a Pelican 1495 case. In addition to the combo lock built into the case itself I secure it with a combination padlock. To get to the guns inside, someone would need boltcutters AND a bandsaw. I check it as a separate piece of luggage.

Ammunition
Passengers are limited to 11 pounds of ammunition in their checked luggage, and none at all in their carry-ons. That won’t be a problem if you’re heading somewhere to hunt, but if you’re flying to some sort of training event or shooting competition, 11 pounds isn’t much at all. Some venues will let you mail your ammo to yourself.

The ammunition also has to be either in factory boxes or boxes specifically designed to hold ammunition. This means no loose, bulk-packed ammo. Also, many gate agents interpret this as “must be in factory boxes,” so if you have unmarked boxes for your handloads, you might have to educate the counter agent (see #5).

I often am checking my carry gun, and my carry ammunition is Winchester Ranger +P+ 9mm, which unfortunately is not offered for sale to civilians, so the boxes are marked “For Law Enforcement Use Only.” That is Winchester’s preference and the dictum has no legal bearing, but instead of trying to explain this to the counter agent I usually just put the ammo in another box.

Combination Locks
Once the counter agent has had you fill out the orange “Unloaded Firearm” form and put it in the case next to the gun, the TSA may want to examine the case or run it through a scanner right then. Sometimes the counter agent just has me lock the case up and they put it on the conveyor belt, with the warning to stick around for a few minutes in case the TSA “needs to get in the case.” If they do, a TSA agent may approach you and ask for the keys to the padlock so they can open the case, which may be at a nearby station or somewhere not even in view. This is why I don’t use key locks but only combination locks so that I have to open the case myself, which means I will be present anytime the case is open. Don’t ever let anyone open your gun case when you’re not present–which means NEVER use “TSA-approved” luggage locks for your gun cases, because they have master keys for those. I won’t use them on any of my luggage, because I want to know when people are going through my stuff.

You could use key locks and simply refuse to let anyone else open the case unless you’re present. This happened to a friend of mine. The TSA agent wouldn’t bring the case to him as it was in a “secure area” he wasn’t cleared for, and my friend refused to turn over the keys because he didn’t want them opening his gun case when he wasn’t present. The increasingly angry TSA agent threatened to break into the case. My friend threatened to call the ATF and report his guns stolen, which would have shut down the whole airport (he wasn’t bluffing). Who won the argument? Let’s just say the TSA (whose employees are not sworn law enforcement agents) is more afraid of the ATF than the other way around.

If the TSA sees you’re using combination padlocks, they know getting your case open won’t be as simple as asking for your keys.

Bring the Rules
If you fly enough, you will run into an airline or TSA employee who either is a jerk, idiot, or just hates guns (or some combination of the three). It’s happened to me and just about everybody I know who flies with guns frequently. Why you’re checking a gun is none of their business (Why do you own a gun? Are you a cop? Are you going to be doing some shooting? Why do you need two guns? Why do you have all that ammunition? – I’ve heard all of these questions at one time or another. You don’t have to answer them.)

Go to the TSA website and print out their rules, and also print out the rules from the website of whichever airline you’re using. If the counter agent who’s checking you in starts claiming you’re only allowed one box of ammo or that the gun has wear a trigger lock, or something else you know to be incorrect, you’ll have their own rules printed out and ready. Doing this has solved all sorts of problems for several people I know.

TSA website

Originally appeared in Handguns Magazine.

 

Oregon: Initiative Filed to Restrict Self-Defense

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

This highly restrictive initiative once again would make law-abiding citizens criminals unless we’re willing to jump through meaningless hoops. READ MORE

gun lock

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

On July 18th, Initiative Petition 40 was filed in Oregon to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law abiding adults by imposing a broad, one-size-fits-all method of storing firearms. This egregious attack on our freedoms uses virtually the same language as the failed Initiative Petition 44 from 2018 as well as the same provisions from Senate Bill 978 that did not pass during the 2019 legislative session. Anti-gun proponents will stop at nothing to restrict self-defense rights in Oregon, and will be using this initiative petition in an attempt to coerce legislators to pass gun control during the 2020 short session.

Please spread the word to your family, friends, and fellow gun owners to oppose these efforts to restrict self-defense rights in Oregon! Help protect Oregonians’ Second Amendment rights and decline to sign Initiative Petition 40.

Initiative Petition 40 would require all firearms to be locked with a trigger-locking device or kept in a locked container, unless carried by the possessor of a firearm, with each firearm constituting a separate violation. Anyone who has their firearms lost or stolen would be strictly liable for any injury to persons or property committed using the firearm within four years if the firearms were not stored in compliance with the law. Firearm owners would also be held liable for any injury occurring within four years that results from a firearm transferred to another individual if the firearm was not transferred in a locked container or with a locking device.

Gun safety and storage is a matter of personal responsibility and every person’s situation is different. It is unreasonable for the law to impose a one-size-fits-all solution. This poorly thought out initiative is without any consideration for personal circumstances. This intrusive initiative invades people’s homes and forces them to render their firearms useless in a self-defense situation by locking them up.

This initiative will also require firearm owners to report lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours or face charges, with each firearm constituting a separate offense. In addition, firearm owners who do not report their firearms lost or stolen will be held liable for any injury that occurs within 5 years involving those firearms. A firearm owner should not be held liable for the crimes committed by a person who has illegally obtained their firearm. Individuals should not be further victimized after experiencing a burglary or other loss.

Proponents must first gather 1,000 signatures in order to have a ballot title drafted before they can begin gathering the 112,020 signatures required to place it on the 2020 ballot. Your NRA-ILA will continue to keep you updated on the status of this initiative, so please stay tuned to your email inbox and www.nraila.org for further updates on this issue.

 

NRA Statement On Virginia Special Session

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

The interim executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, Jason Ouimet, released the following statement regarding the special session in Virginia. READ IT ALL

nra members

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

“The National Rifle Association has a long history of working to reduce violent crime rates within the Commonwealth of Virginia. We commend the House and Senate Republican leadership for renewing the focus on putting violent criminals behind bars and a much needed refocus on mental health initiatives. Without a final report on the Virginia Beach investigation, this special session by Gov. Northam was a complete taxpayer-funded distraction. The discussion before the Virginia Crime Commission should focus on solutions that provide strong due process and put a stop to the continued politicization of law-abiding individual’s constitutional rights.”

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates 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 armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.

 

“Fact Checker” — Joe Biden’s “Gun Ban” Not a Gun Ban Because Some Guns Wouldn’t Be Banned

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

It’s hard to check facts when the fact-checkers don’t know them… KEEP READING

fact check

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Facebook has teamed up with what it calls “third-party fact-checkers” to punish users of its platform that post information embarrassing or inconvenient to the political outlook of its principals. Yet like most sources of what passes as “news” or “journalism” these days, these “independent” organizations have knowledge deficits and outright biases that color the information they provide to the public. Take, for example, Politifact’s assertion that a gun ban is not a gun ban if there are still guns left to be banned.

Last month, the NRA’s Facebook page posted a photo of Joe Biden with the message: “Joe Biden calls for gun ban.” This was in reference to Biden’s well-known and very explicit stance that he wants to ban AR-15s and like semiautomatic rifles

There is no dispute about this. As vice-president, Biden responded to a petition by gun control activists demanding a ban on “AR-15-type weapons” by stating: “I want to say this as plainly and clearly as possible: The President and I agree with you. Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines should be banned from civilian ownership.”

More recently as a candidate for the Democrat presidential nomination, Biden published what he called a “Plan for Educator’s, Students, and our Future.” Among its agenda items was to “[d]efeat the National Rifle Association” by “championing legislation to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines – bans [Biden] authored in 1994.”

So yes, he wants a gun ban. And not just on some exotic or unusual types of firearms known only to criminals or the military but on what are in fact the most popular types of centerfire rifles in America today.

After the NRA post, Facebook appended a link to a Politifact story that rated the NRA’s claim as “Mostly False.”

Politifact did not deny that Biden wants to ban AR-15s and similar guns, nor did it deny those types of firearms are very common and popular in the U.S.

Nevertheless, it insisted that “saying Biden calls for a gun ban could lead readers to believe he’s seeking to outlaw all firearms.”

This is classic use of a strawman by Politifact.

In other words, Politifact fabricated a theoretical misperception about what the NRA actually said to make a true statement “Mostly False.”

But the NRA made very clear exactly what sort of “ban” we were referring to by linking to a Fox News article about Biden’s “education” plan.

The Politifact article also used details of the 1994 “assault weapon” ban that Biden helped author and shepherd into law to make claims about what he means now when he says he wants to ban “assault weapons.”

But anti-gun Democrats have in intervening years introduced far more extensive bans under the phony “assault weapons” rubric, making it clear that prominent members of the party think the old ban did not go far enough.

Just how far Biden is proposing to go in banning guns is therefore unclear. He has not actually released legislative language for his proposed ban, nor a comprehensive list of the guns or design features he would seek to prohibit. There is no reason to believe, however, that he would (as Politifact takes for granted) feel bound by limitations in an old law that leaders of his party now view as inadequate.

In any case, a leading firearm industry source estimated there were more than 16 million AR-15-style rifles owned by civilians as of 2018. Merely banning future sales of those types of guns would unquestionably be a sweeping and dramatic incursion on access to the very types of firearms that Americans, left to their own devices, choose for lawful purposes.

It’s also notable that the old law Biden referenced was often referred to in news sources, that Politifact undoubtedly would consider reputable, as a “gun ban” or “Clinton’s gun ban,” including PBS, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times. Were they also being misleading or hyperbolic in the use of that term?

Politifact additionally mentions in passing that Biden insisted during a nationally televised debate on June 27, “We should have smart guns,” and, “No gun should be able to be sold unless your biometric measure could pull that trigger.” He went on to characterize “gun manufacturers” as “our enemy.”

What Politifact conveniently omitted from its story is that no firearm currently available in the U.S. meets Biden’s fanciful “biometric” activation test.

It would therefore not be much of a stretch, given Biden’s own words, to suggest he doesn’t think any of the guns currently available for sale in the U.S. are acceptable.

Finally, Politifact ignored the fact that during the same debate, Biden also said: “I would buy back those weapons. We already started talking about that. We tried to get it done. I think it can be done. It should be demanded that we do it and that’s a good expenditure of money.”

Again, what “weapons” Biden was referring to or the details of his proposal were not clear, but the sort of “buybacks” the Obama administration promoted while Biden was vice president were modeled on policies adopted in Australia during the 1990s. These “buybacks” would more accurately be characterized as orders of mandatory firearm surrender. While owners of the affected guns were offered some bureaucratically set compensation for their property, it was an offer they couldn’t refuse. Failure to sell the banned guns could have resulted in the owners being criminally prosecuted and even jailed.

Given the foregoing, we rate Politifact’s article “politics, not fact.”

In this case the “fact-checker” was clearly trying to discredit a true statement from the NRA and minimize the increasingly radical nature of the anti-gun agenda being pursued by leading Democrats, namely Joe Biden.

 

Hey Virginia! Speak Up Against Your Governor, And Do It Now!

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

His plans would leave Virginians with severely restricted rights. READ MORE

northam

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Following the tragedy in Virginia Beach, Governor Ralph Northam recently held a press conference outlining his plans to enact new gun control proposals that will significantly restrict the rights of Virginia’s law-abiding gun owners while doing nothing to stop criminals. Gov. Northam and his media allies are desperate to deflect attention from scandals involving all three statewide officeholders and are trying to scape-goat Virginia’s law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a madman.

If Gov. Northam gets his way, Virginia will have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Gov. Northam knows that none of his proposed gun control would have prevented the tragic murders in Virginia Beach, but they will make it harder for law-abiding Virginians to exercise their constitutional right to self-defense. Don’t let Gov. Northam take away your rights and put your safety at risk.

Don’t let Gov. Northam take away your rights and put your safety at risk.

It’s critical every gun owner in the Commonwealth contact their legislators, urging them to OPPOSE Gov. Northam’s anti-gun agenda, and attend the Special Session on Gun Control on July 9!

Would any of Gov. Ralph Northam’s gun control proposals have stopped the tragedy in Virginia Beach?

So-Called “Universal” Background Checks
NO.
According to law enforcement, the perpetrator of the shooting in Virginia Beach legally purchased the firearms used in the attack.

“Assault Weapons” Ban
NO.
The Virginia Beach tragedy was committed with handguns, not so-called “assault weapons.”

Standard Capacity Magazine Ban
NO.
Following the shooting, Virginia Beach Police Chief James Cervera stated, “As far as more legislation on gun issues. I’m a member of Major City Chiefs, we did publish something about a year and a half ago. I don’t think most of that would have mattered in this particular case. We do have the Second Amendment it is very stringent for our country. In this particular case, the weapons were obtained legally. Everything was done in a legal manner by this individual.”

Silencer/Suppressor Ban
NO.
Despite its name, firearms are still very loud when using a silencer/suppressor. The outcome of the attack at Virginia Beach would be no different with or without a silencer/suppressor.

One-Gun-A-Month Purchase Law
NO.
The perpetrator used two handguns to carry out the attack. The perpetrator bought one of the pistols in 2016 and the other in 2018.

Requiring Reporting Lost or Stolen Firearms
NO.
The firearms used in the Virginia Beach tragedy were purchased through a Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealer.

Government-Mandated Firearm Storage
NO.
The alleged perpetrator of the attack was 40 years old at the time of the attack. A government-mandated safe storage law would have had no effect on the attack.

Weakening State Firearms Preemption
NO.
Like many of the other proposed gun control ideas, weakening state firearms preemption would have done nothing to prevent the tragedy in Virginia Beach because criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. These laws and others are only effective in restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Say NO to Gov. Northam’s extreme gun control agenda. This is anti-gun politics as usual. Let’s demand real solutions from Richmond, not failed gun control schemes.

Bloomberg’s Killjoys Target Fourth of July Fireworks

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

They seriously don’t get it… READ MORE

crossing the delaware

[Editor’s note: I know 4th of July was a bit ago but didn’t coincide with the last blog post date, and I wanted to share this one because it’s just crazy…]

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

In a July 3, 1776 letter to his wife Abigail, founding father John Adams wrote about how Independence Day should be celebrated. Adams explained,

I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

In the years since, Americans have done their best to live up to Adams’s expectations by celebrating the Fourth of July with fireworks. According to the American Pyrotechnics Association, Americans spent $1.3 billion on illuminations in 2018, with $945 million of the total spent on consumer fireworks. As for the volume of pyrotechnics, Americans consumed 277.5 million lbs. of fireworks in 2018. Simply put, celebrating with fireworks is an integral part of and ubiquitous on Independence Day.

Never a group to tolerate the traditions of others, or to celebrate American freedom, Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety made clear this week that Americans have been commemorating Independence Day wrong.

On July 1, the gun control group tweeted out an image with the message “Consider gun violence survivors on the Fourth of July.” The image was accompanied by a further message that stated,

Every day, an average of 100 Americans are fatally shot & hundreds more are shot and injured. If you’re planning to set off fireworks to celebrate the 4th, consider letting members of your community know so those who might be sensitive to loud noises can prepare themselves.

There are those with a sensitivity to loud noises, including some veterans suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder. No one should go out of their way to exacerbate these individuals’ condition.

However, Everytown’s blanket admonishment raises a serious question, which was identified by Stephen Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon. Gutowski tweeted, “This confuses me. Are there people in America that are unaware we set off fireworks on the 4th of July?”

It doesn’t take a cynic to suspect that Everytown’s Independence Day lecture isn’t about helping those with sensitivity to loud noises. The group has routinely sought to pervert cherished holidays in order to push its gun control agenda. In 2013, Everytown component Mayors Against Illegal Guns created a placemat that encouraged loved ones to argue about gun control during Thanksgiving dinner. The lame stunt was repeated the following year. Everytown supporters are encouraged to send anti-gun “holiday cards” to their members of congress.

Americans should strive to be safe and neighborly in their July 4th activities, but none should let a would-be oligarch and his political minions deter them from fun and legal celebrations. After all, Adams’s prescription for Independence Day observance was “from this Time forward forever more.”