Category Archives: Gun Rights

CCW: Avoiding Reloaded Ammo?

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Many handgun owners reload, but is it wise to count on that ammo for defensive carry? Jason Hanson says “no.” READ WHY

handgun bullets

Jason Hanson

During war, one of the most common tactics used to fight the enemy is to disrupt their supply lines.

During the Vietnam War, U.S. soldiers did this in a different way than just simply stopping supplies from getting to the enemy.

This specific operation, code named “Project Eldest Son,” was carried out by U.S. Green-Beret patrols, who captured enemy ammunition stashes that were typically 7.62 X 39mm ammo cartridges, which were used in the AK-47’s regularly carried by Communist forces.

Once the U.S. captured the ammo stashes, the cartridges would be disassembled and then put back together with different components.

For instance, the powder in the cartridges was replaced with a high explosive powder that would generate five times the pressure in the firearm.

The high explosive powder inside the cartridges would typically cause the AK-47 receiver to explode sending bolts and pieces of the gun backwards towards the person holding the rifle.

Once the sabotaged ammo was ready to go, U.S. forces would return the ammo to the stashes and would usually put one bad round in a container full of good rounds.

Basically, this would put doubt into the enemy’s mind regarding the safety and reliability of their ammo.

In addition, most of the Communist forces ammo was coming from China so this also was done so the enemy would question the ammo they were receiving from China.

The fact is, our firearms are obviously worthless without ammunition that works.

I’m sure you’ve heard how many gun activists want to make ammo harder to come by and there is no question that depending on where you live, it’s becoming more difficult to walk into your sporting goods store to buy ammo.

This has led to a continuing growing popularity of reloading your own ammo. Now, I know people who have done this for years and are very good at what they do.

On the other hand, I have a family member who spent countless hours reloading thousands of rounds, only to find out the powder was a little off and the ammo was unusable.

This is why if you reload ammo you have to take your time and know what you’re doing. This is not something you want to watch one YouTube video about and then think you’re a pro who knows it all.

So, if you are considering getting into reloading ammo, keep in mind the factors below and make sure you invest the time to do it right.

Reliability.
As I mentioned, I had a family member who reloaded his own ammo and was slightly off with his measurements.

Of course, no one is perfect, but the thing is, the big ammo manufacturers clearly have numerous safety inspections in place that make their ammo much more dependable, which is why quality ammo rarely has any issues.

Cartridge gets weaker.
Unless you keep your eye on every cartridge you use for reloading, you never know how many times the cartridge has been reloaded. The more you reload a cartridge, the weaker it will become over time.

Essentially, as it becomes weaker, it will be more prone to failure and malfunctions.

Legality.
I realize this is a big “what if,” however, if you were ever involved in a self-defense shooting would you really want to explain your reloaded ammo?

Again, I realize this is a stretch, but it is one more thing an aggressive prosecutor or civil attorney could use to try and blame you for what happen. During a trial, the best thing you can do is show the court a box of ammo from the manufacturer and say contact them with any questions.

When it comes to ammo, some of my favorite brands are Speer, Hornady, Remington, Winchester, and Federal. These are all quality and dependable brands that won’t break the bank.

I do realize a lot of folks reload ammo for the huge savings cost. If this is the case, I see nothing wrong with reloading rounds for simply target practice at the range or shooting with friends.

However, I would not use reloaded rounds in my self-defense weapon and I would spend the extra money to make sure you have a reliable round when your life depends on it.

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, click HERE 

Another Study Blames Guns, Excludes Reality

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Jumping to conclusions from a small and unreliable sample is not the way to win a debate, but here they go again… READ MORE

mental health

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

A study published in Preventative Medicine by Yu Lu and Jeff R. Temple concludes that “the majority of mental health symptoms examined were not related to gun violence. Instead, access to firearms was the primary culprit.”

The first caveat here is that the researchers did not measure or test “gun violence.” They asked respondents — young adults who at one time attended one of seven public high schools in the southern United States — if they had ever threatened someone with a gun. There is no context for these incidents mentioned in the published study or in the supplementary material, no means to identify if the respondent was the aggressor in these scenarios or if they were defending themselves. Sixteen respondents reported they had threatened someone with a firearm; six were young women.

The author’s conclusion is based on 16 out of 663 total respondents drawn from just seven public high schools across the southern United States. There are more than 50 schools serving grades 9 to 12 in the Houston Independent School District alone.

Mental illness itself is not tested; the researchers tested symptoms of mental health using a variety of screening questions about anxiety, depression, stress, PTSD, hostility, impulsivity, and borderline personality disorder. The authors do acknowledge that participants who report such symptoms do not necessarily reach criteria to be diagnosed. Some of the questions, specifically when asked of young adults, introduce some doubt into the validity of the results. See pages 2-3 of the study for examples of the questions asked. They excluded substance abuse and severe mental disorders, and this is where we really start to run into problems.

Lu and Temple believe that mental illness is blamed for gun violence. We suspect this belief — and it is not limited to these researchers — is because mental illness is a common factor in the highest-profile mass shootings. The authors cite a previous study that found “only major mental disorders were significantly associated with past year violence” but then exclude severe disorders like schizophrenia and more severe symptoms like hallucinations from their study. Grant Duwe is the research director for the Minnesota Department of Corrections and literally wrote the book on mass murder. In an op-ed after Parkland, Duwe noted that peer-reviewed research showed that individuals with major mental disorders are more likely to commit violent acts, especially if they abuse drugs. Duwe cited the same author that Lue and Temple cited for the similar claim in their paper. Duwe also reports that there is a relatively high rate of mental illness specifically among those who commit mass public shootings and notes that Mother Jones reached a similar conclusion.

Lu and Temple’s study finds that young people with guns are more likely to have threatened someone with a gun. Re-read that finding. Soak in the insight it offers, so long as you don’t mind a shallow pool. The presence of a gun is sort of a requirement to threaten someone with a gun, isn’t it?

Maybe not among the 16 “emerging adults” who told strangers they had committed a potentially illegal act.

The model in this study found that those who received mental health treatment in the past year significantly predicted threatening someone with a gun but that significance was washed out when the symptoms of mental health were included in the model. We suspect some multicollinearity between mental health treatment and mental health symptoms, as mental health treatment and the tested symptoms may be correlated.

Lu and Temple position their research as a contribution to the debate between “dangerous people” (the mentally ill) and “dangerous weapons” (firearms). Their own opinion on firearms is clear; their survey found that most people who carry guns did so for protection, and so they argue that “the best method to prevent gun carrying may be the building of an overall safer environment.”

Anti-gun advocates want to limit the rights of law-abiding gun owners and so research like this is held up as evidence that it must be the firearms themselves when, in reality, no one is arguing that everyone with any of the symptoms of mental illness tested here are necessarily dangerous. The inclusion of mental illness in the debate over gun rights is because some with severe mental illnesses do not receive the help they need and commit horrible acts. The responsible, law-abiding nature of tens of millions of American gun owners is ignored by efforts to restrict our rights.

Framing the argument as an attack on anyone dealing with any form of mental illness does a disservice to the debate. So does a study based on the unclear and potentially illegal self-reported actions of 16 young adults from a handful of schools in a specific region of the country.

 

Indiana: Self-Defense Bill Passes House, On To Senate

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Now for some good news: A new bill in Indiana seeks to prevent frivolous lawsuits against its citizens use of justifiable force in defensive situations. READ MORE

ccw

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

On February 11th, the Indiana state House of Representatives voted 80-13 to pass House Bill 1284 to enhance protections afforded to law-abiding citizens acting in defense of themselves and others. HB 1284 will now go to the state Senate for further consideration.

House Bill 1284, sponsored by Representative Jim Lucas (R-69), would provide immunity for a justified use of force in certain instances to help prevent frivolous lawsuits. Victims of violent crime shouldn’t be subjected to unnecessary civil suits, therefore being victimized twice. This bill would also require a court to award, in certain instances, reasonable attorney’s fees if it determines a suit was brought unjustly, helping to prevent financial ruin for individuals protecting themselves and others.

 

Turning a Right into a Privilege: HR 1112 Gives Feds Unfettered Power to Block Gun Sales

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

H.R. 1112 would eliminate the 3-day safety-valve provision under the federal firearms background check system that prevents the government from enacting an indefinite delay of firearm purchases for law-abiding Americans. READ MORE

HR 1112

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

H.R. 8, which would criminalize the private transfer of firearms, has received significant attention from the gun rights community. However, H.R. 1112, which purportedly targets the inappropriately-named “Charleston loophole,” is just as insidious an attack on gun owners. Both bills were passed out of the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

All Federal Firearms Licensees (gun dealers) are required to conduct a background check on prospective purchasers to determine if transferring the firearm would violate state or federal law. Under current law, if an FFL initiates a background check, but does not receive a determination from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System within three business days, the FFL may proceed with the firearms transfer. After the three-day window, FBI continues to research the matter that gave rise to an individual’s delay for 90 days after the check was initiated. If it is later determined that the person is prohibited from possessing firearms, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is notified and tasked with retrieving the firearm.

Under the proposed legislation, the 3-day safety valve would be eliminated and replaced with a procedure that provides gun buyers with no protection. If an FFL initiates a check and does not receive a response from NICS after 10 business days, the prospective purchaser may petition the FBI to permit the transfer to proceed. The FFL may not proceed with the transaction until an additional 10 business days have elapsed from the date of the petition.

Existing federal law limits the validity of a NICS background check to 30 calendar days from the date it is initiated. Because H.R. 1112 uses business days and the NICS validity provision is in calendar days, in practice, H.R. 1112 would have no default proceed available.

For example, if H.R. 1112 were to become law, gun buyers who are delayed on the busiest gun buying day of the year, Black Friday, would not be able to clear their delay under H.R. 1112’s provisions before their NICS check expired. Black Friday 2019 falls on November 29th, so the first day that the prospective purchaser could file a petition would be December 14th.

The additional 10-business day wait after the petition would make December 31st the first day that the FFL could transfer the firearm, but that would be prohibited because the NICS check expired on December 29th. The purchaser would have to begin the process again with another NICS check, with the likely result being another delay and the process beginning all over again.

The current three-day safety-valve provision is vital and protects gun owners in numerous ways. The safety-valve provision ensures that if there is a disruption to the NICS system or an overwhelming volume of background checks, lawful firearms transfer from dealers can still take place. Most importantly, the safety-valve provision ensures that the FBI carries out its background check duties in an expedient and responsible manner that recognizes the right to keep and bear arms as a constitutionally-protected individual right.

Absent this provision, the FBI would have less incentive to conduct NICS checks in a timely manner. Moreover, the agency would have free reign to indefinitely delay any transfers they deem undesirable, for whatever political or purported public policy purpose they could concoct. This would turn all firearms sales from dealers into something akin to may-issue licensing. Prospective gun buyers who are not prohibited from owning firearms by law could be denied by bureaucratic dictate through the form of an indefinite delay.

Providing FBI with this sort of discretion poses a danger to Second Amendment rights. This is clear, because the FBI already attempts to use assumed discretion to encumber certain lawful gun sales.

According to the Congressional Research Service it is standard FBI practice to delay firearms transactions to those on the government’s secret watchlists. A person’s placement on a secret government watchlist with secret and nebulous criteria is not sufficient to encumber their constitutional rights, therefore they are not prohibited from possessing firearms by virtue of their watchlist status. Aside from the constitutional matter, those on the secret federal watchlists are not statutorily prohibited from possessing firearms. However, the FBI has taken upon itself to delay all background checks for those suspected of being on its secret watchlist.

As the CRS report explained:
In the case of a possible watchlist match, NICS sends a delayed transfer (for up to three business days) response to the querying federally licensed gun dealer or state POC. During a delay, NICS staff contacts immediately the FBI Headquarters’ Counterterrorism Division and FBI Special Agents in the field, and a coordinated effort is made to research possibly unknown prohibiting factors. If no prohibiting factors are uncovered within this three-day period, firearms dealers may proceed with the transaction at their discretion. However, FBI counterterrorism officials continue to work the case for up to 90 days in case disposition information is returned that permits a final determination.

Even those who have little sympathy for those who currently find themselves on secret government watchlists should understand that FBI’s dubious and assumed discretionary authority in this instance is a grave threat to liberty and that this threat would be severely exacerbated without the safety-valve provision. What group might an emboldened federal government find deplorable enough to target next?

Legislation to remove the three-day safety valve provision has been marketed as an effort to close the so-called “Charleston loophole.” The term stems from the hate-fueled 2015 shooting of several parishioners at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, S.C. Proponents of the legislation claim that perpetrator of the attack could have been stopped but for the three-day safety-valve provision. This is false.

On April 11, 2015, the perpetrator of the Charleston attack attempted to buy the firearm he used in the shooting from an FFL and was delayed due to an arrest for drug possession. The firearm was transferred to him five days later, absent a direct proceed order from NICS. The attack did not occur until June 17. In the intervening time, the FBI had the opportunity to continue to investigate whether the perpetrator was prohibited from possessing firearms and could have referred the case to ATF for a firearm retrieval had they determined he was indeed prohibited.

Contrary to inaccurate statements made by the FBI, the perpetrator was not prohibited from possessing firearms. Under federal law, a person is prohibited from possessing firearms if they are an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.” The FBI has contended that the perpetrator’s arrest would have prohibited him from possessing a firearm. In turn, this has prompted gun control supporters to claim that this instance proves the FBI should be given further time to conduct NICS checks, even though the FBI had more than two months to investigate the validity of the transfer in the case. To sustain a conviction for firearm possession by an “unlawful user” federal courts require the drug use to be “sufficiently consistent, prolonged, and close in time to [the] gun possession . . . .”

A simple drug arrest does not meet this standard.

Therefore, for multiple reasons, the ploy by this bill’s proponents of connecting the three-day safety-valve provision to the Charleston attack is simply fraudulent.

Gun rights supporters have spent the last 30 years successfully working to remove may-issue licensing schemes that empower those in government to indulge their political biases and general prejudices to control the exercise of a constitutional right. Gun owners and civil liberties supporters across the political spectrum must recognize H.R. 1112 for what it is, a measure that would subject the exercise of a constitutional right to the unfettered discretion of federal bureaucrats.

 

Texas: Gun Control Bills Continue To Be Filed

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Everything’s bigger in Texas! Unfortunately including the number of new anti-gun legislation measures filed. READ MORE

texas flag

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

This Monday the Texas Legislature convened in Austin last month for its 86th Regular Session and the number of gun control measures filed so far is unprecedented. And there’s more to come — the deadline for bill introduction is not until March 8.

New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s national gun control groups Everytown for Gun Safety/Moms Demand Action, along with their policy partners at Texas Gun Sense, continue working with anti-gun lawmakers to file countless misguided proposals that restrict your Second Amendment rights. Don’t be fooled by attempts to package these bills as “sensible public safety measures” or “common-sense solutions to gun violence” — they are part of Bloomberg’s radical agenda that targets law-abiding gun owners.

We reported to you last month on some of that legislation. Since then, even more gun control measures have been introduced, including but not limited to:

House Bill 930 by Rep. Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) repeals the Lone Star State’s “Castle Doctrine” law.

House Bill 1163 by Rep. Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) allows municipalities with a population of more than 750,000 to vote on whether to prohibit License To Carry holders from openly carrying handguns within city limits.

House Bill 1164 by Rep. Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) expands the prohibited places that apply to License to Carry (LTC) holders in Penal Code Section 46.035 to include facilities such as golf courses, amphitheaters, auditoriums, theaters, museums, zoos, botanical gardens, civic centers and convention centers, provided they are posted off-limits.

House Bill 1169 by Rep. Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) creates the offense of knowingly selling a firearm to another at a gun show without conducting the transfer through a licensed dealer, which would involve completing extensive federal paperwork and payment of an undetermined fee.

House Bill 1207 by Rep. Eddie Rodriguez (D-Austin) makes it a crime for a person to fail to report a lost or stolen firearm within five days of the person becoming aware that the gun was lost or stolen.

House Bill 1236 by Rep. Vikki Goodwin (D-Austin) allows public colleges and universities to opt-out of Texas’ campus carry law. (An identical bill, HB 1173, was also filed by Rep. Rafael Anchia.)

We also reported to you last month on several pro-Second Amendment measures that had been introduced early in session; these additional pro-gun reform measures have been filed since then:

House Bill 1009 by Rep. Will Metcalf (R-Conroe) clarifies the definition of “school-sponsored activity” in the Texas Penal Code to avoid the establishment of roving gun-free zones in buildings or areas that are not owned by or under the control of a school or postsecondary educational institution.

House Bill 1143 by Rep. Cole Hefner (R-Mount Pleasant) limits the authority of school districts to regulate the manner in which firearms and ammunition are stored in private motor vehicles parked on school property (including by school employees).

House Bill 1149 by Rep. James White (R-Woodville) ties eligibility for a License To Carry a handgun to the ability to purchase a firearm.

House Bill 1177 by Rep. Dade Phelan (R-Beaumont) & Senate Bill 506 by Sen. Brandon Creighton (R-Conroe) protect citizens from being charged with a crime for carrying a handgun while evacuating from an area subject to a mandatory order issued during a declared state or local disaster, or while returning home.

House Bill 1231 by Rep. Dan Flynn (R-Van) & Senate Bill 535 by Sen. Donna Campbell (R-New Braunfels) repeals the prohibition on carrying in churches or other places of worship.

Senate Bill 472 by Sen. Bryan Hughes (R-Mineola) protects the rights of tenants to lawfully possess firearms in their residential or commercial rental properties and to transport their guns between their personal vehicles and those locations.

Be sure to contact your state lawmakers and urge them to oppose the bad bills and support the good ones!

 

Washington: Magazine Ban & Firearm Seizure Bills Pass Committee

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Getting it cranked up early this year folks! Proposed legislation in Washington state seeks to ban higher-capacity magazines. READ IT ALL

magazine ban

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

During the executive session last Friday, the Washington state House Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary voted to pass House Bill 1068 to ban many standard capacity ammunition magazines and House Bill 1225 for firearm seizures without due process. These two bills will now go to the House floor for further consideration. Please contact your state Representatives and urge them to OPPOSE House Bills 1068 & 1225.

House Bill 1068, sponsored by Representative Javier Valdez (D-46), was filed at the request of Attorney General Bob Ferguson and passed by a vote of 9-6. It would ban the possession of ammunition magazines with a capacity greater than 15, encompassing the standard capacity magazines for many handguns and rifles commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for self-defense.

House Bill 1225, sponsored by Representative Laurie Jinkins (D-27), would require law-enforcement to seize firearms and ammunition when they are called to the scene of an alleged domestic violence incident and hold them for at least five business days. This would result in property being confiscated without first going through due process and subject citizens to bureaucratic red tape to get their property returned.

House Bill 1739, sponsored by Rep. Valdez, was also filed at the request of Attorney General Ferguson. It would end the centuries-old practice of manufacturing firearms for personal use and also contains provisions that go above and beyond federal law that already bans undetectable firearms. The committee rescheduled the vote for HB 1739 to next week.

Contact your state Representatives and urge them to OPPOSE House Bills 1068 & 1225.

 

Illinois: Ammunition Registry Bill Introduced

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Late last week, House Bill 1467 was introduced to create a registry of ammunition sales by anyone, including private individuals. READ MORE

ammo

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

House Bill 1467, sponsored by Representative Lamont Robinson (D-5), would require anyone who sells any amount of ammunition to maintain records including the personal information and Firearms Owner Identification Card (FOID) of the buyer, and the type, quantity, and manufacturer of the ammunition. These records would have to be maintained for inspection by law enforcement and would also have to be forwarded to state police within seven days of each transaction. In addition, state police would be directed to establish and maintain a searchable database of these records.

These onerous recordkeeping and forwarding requirements will incur unnecessary costs on businesses and also hinder law-abiding gun owners trading ammunition among themselves. This solution in search of a problem will not only waste taxpayer-funded resources, but it will also not improve public safety. Current state law already prohibits those without a FOID from possessing ammunition, and sellers are required to verify that the buyer has a FOID. A registry would not affect criminals. The only purpose that these registries serve is to facilitate future confiscations from law-abiding citizens.

 Please contact your state Representative and urge them to OPPOSE HB 1467. 

 

Governor Noem Signs NRA-backed Constitutional Carry Bill

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Now for some good news from the “other side.” Kudos to South Dakota! READ WHY

noem

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

The National Rifle Association today applauded South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem for signing into law Senate Bill 47, NRA-backed legislation that fully recognizes the constitutional right of law-abiding gun owners to carry a concealed firearm.

“On behalf of the NRA’s five-million members, we would like to thank Governor Noem for her leadership on this critical issue,” said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA-ILA. “This law is a common sense measure that allows law-abiding South Dakotans to exercise their fundamental right to self-protection in the manner that best suits their needs.”

This was the first bill Governor Noem signed into law.

South Dakota already recognizes the right to carry a firearm openly without a permit. Current law, however, requires a state-issued permit to carry that same firearm under a coat or in a bag. This new law simply extends the current open carry rule to concealed carry. Those who obtain permits will still enjoy the reciprocity agreements that South Dakota has with other states.

With this law, South Dakota joins Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, New Hampshire and North Dakota as the fourteenth state that allows constitutional carry.

 

Keep Telling Your Members of Congress to Oppose “Universal” Background Check Bills!

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Two bills recently introduced into Congress are no more than traps for law-abiding gun owners. READ WHY

gun control

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

On January 8, two bills were introduced in Congress to impose so-called “universal” background checks. The bills, H.R. 8 and S. 42, are being misleadingly described as simply requiring background checks on all sales of firearms, but this is just a small part of what these overbroad pieces of legislation would do.

A vote on this gun control legislation could take place as early as the first weeks of February. Therefore, it is vital that gun owners immediately contact their members of Congress to urge them to oppose this legislation, and that gun owners encourage their freedom-minded family and friends to do the same.

Both bills would make it a crime, subject to certain exceptions, to simply hand a firearm to another person. Any time gun owners carry out this simple act, they would potentially be exposing themselves to criminal penalties. While the bills do create some exceptions, they are overly complicated and create many traps for unwary gun owners. Accidental violations of these complicated provisions are not excused under the proposed legislation.

Ask your Representative and Senators to oppose H.R.8 and S.42. Additionally, you may call your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators using the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121.

This legislation is not about public safety. These bills attack law-abiding gun owners by placing further burdens on gun ownership and use. For the anti-gun groups and politicians intent on criminalizing the private transfer of firearms, this legislation is just another step in their effort to extinguish America’s vibrant and legitimate gun culture.

Expanded Background Checks Don’t Work
Proponents of so-called “universal” background checks claim that this legislation is the “most important” thing that can be done to stop dangerous people from obtaining firearms. This is a lie. There is no evidence that expanded background checks are useful for this purpose.

Just last year, a study by anti-gun researchers confirmed that expanded background checks in California did not reduce gun homicides or gun suicides.

This finding is consistent with a review of past studies on expanded background checks by the RAND Corporation that found that “evidence of the effect of private-seller background checks on firearm homicides is inconclusive.”

In 2013, the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice researched so-called “universal” background checks and determined that they would be not be effective without further harsh firearms restrictions and efforts to combat straw purchasing.

Criminals are not deterred by background checks. ATF has reported, “[t]he most frequent type of trafficking channel identified in ATF investigations is straw purchasing from federally licensed firearms dealers. Nearly 50 percent …” A Chicago-area inmate explained this reality to researchers from the University of Chicago in relation to Illinois’s stringent firearm licensing regime for a 2015 study, stating, “All they need is one person who got a gun card in the ‘hood’ and everybody got one.”

A 2016 Department of Justice survey of “state and federal prisoners who had possessed a firearm during the offense for which they were serving” found that the most common source of prisoner firearms was “Off the street/underground market.” This was defined as “Illegal sources of firearms that include markets for stolen goods, middlemen for stolen goods, criminals or criminal enterprises, or individuals or groups involved in sales of illegal drugs.” Less than one percent had obtained their firearm from a gun show.

The research confirms that anti-gun members of Congress aren’t interested in actually addressing violent crime; they’re just trying to deflect the blame on law-abiding gun owners. Please use this link to let your elected officials know that you won’t be blamed for the actions of violent criminals. Ask your Representative and Senators to oppose H.R.8 and S.42. Additionally, you may call your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators using the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121.

 

New Mexico: Governor Lujan Grisham Highlights Gun Control In Opening Day Speech

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Anti-Gun lawmakers respond by considering restrictive firearm bills as early as this Thursday! READ WHY

new mexico

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

In her opening day speech to state lawmakers, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham called on them to pass various gun control proposals that she supported on the campaign trail and which have been filed in the New Mexico Legislature. She stated that “hunters, sportsmen and responsible gun owners also recognize the need for New Mexico to take steps toward smart, effective gun violence prevention…”, implying that the gun community supports the restrictive measures outlined below.

While nobody is more adamant about preventing violent crime than gun owners and sportsmen, we know that the way to accomplish this is not through intrusive, ineffective and unenforceable gun control schemes. NRA Members and Second Amendment supporters are strongly encouraged to contact Governor Lujan Grisham and tell her that you OPPOSE the bills listed below.

In response to the governor’s call-to-action, the House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee is expected to hold public hearings on the following gun control measures on Thursday, January 24, at 1:30pm in Room 317 of the State Capitol. (Note: committee agendas have not been officially posted and we will notify you of any changes in scheduling.)

House Bill 8, so-called “universal background check” legislation sponsored by Representative Debra Sarinana, would ban all private firearms sales between law-abiding individuals. Gun owners will be forced to pay undetermined fees and obtain government approval before selling firearms to family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers, or fellow hunters, competitive shooters and gun club members. This proposal will have no impact on crime and is unenforceable without gun registration.

House Bill 35, by Representative Miguel Garcia, would require federal firearm licensed dealers to pay the state $200 annually to establish a system for the Department of Public Safety to run stolen gun checks on any used firearm an FFL purchases. While FFLs and gun owners support getting stolen firearms off the street, a functional process that allows them to conduct such checks in real time needs to be worked out in advance of any such mandate. And the state, rather than small business owners, should finance such a public safety initiative.

House Bill 40, by Representative Miguel Garcia, would require criminal records checks on private firearms sales at gun shows – a perennial target of the gun control crowd, even though studies show that these events are not a source of crime guns.

House Bill 83, extreme risk protection order or “red flag” legislation sponsored by Representative Damon Ely, would authorize the seizure of firearms and ammunition from individuals without due process. Unchallenged statements made by a petitioner before a judge, alleging that someone is a danger to themselves or others in an ex parte proceeding — prior to any formal court hearing at which the respondent can be represented by counsel and present counter evidence — would be sufficient for law enforcement to enter that person’s home and confiscate their private property.

House Bill 87 by Representative Deborah Armstrong expands the state’s “prohibited person” firearm law by purportedly incorporating federal firearm disqualifications. The bill would prohibit individuals convicted of certain domestic violence misdemeanor crimes or who are subject to a domestic violence protective order from purchasing or possessing a firearm, with violations being a criminal offense. However, the bill goes beyond the prohibited categories in federal law in several significant ways. The state law definition of “household member” — unlike federal law — specifically includes a person who is or has been a continuing personal relationship, which applies to dating or intimate partners who have never lived together. The bill would include, as firearm-prohibiting offenses, nonviolent misdemeanors with no physical contact between the parties (like harassment by telephone or email, or criminal damage to the property or jointly owned property of a “household member”). Unlike federal law, this bill would require anyone subject to a protective order to surrender any firearms they own, possess, or control to law enforcement within 48 hours of the order. Not only does this bill impose a mandatory surrender, it authorizes law enforcement to seize any guns that are in plain sight or are discovered pursuant to a lawful search. Similar legislation had passed the Legislature in 2017 but was vetoed by Gov. Susana Martinez. Significantly, the 2017 legislation contained other options for affected parties to comply with the firearm surrender requirement, including storing their guns with licensed firearm dealers, or transferring the guns to a qualified third party. These key alternatives are not contained in this bill.

House Bill 130, sponsored by Representative Linda Trujillo, would make gun owners criminally and civilly liable if a child gains unsupervised access to an unsecured firearm. New Mexico already has a first degree felony child abuse statute on the books to hold adults accountable for putting children’s lives or health at risk in any manner. The tools exist to charge and prosecute parents or guardians in appropriate cases. Education is the key to protecting gun owners and their kids, not a state mandate on how one stores a firearm in his or her home.