Category Archives: Gun Rights

A Guide To Traveling With An AR15

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

While some might think it’s not possible at all (it is) here are a few tips on how to reliably transport your AR15, and other firearms, to your next destination. READ MORE

gun case

SOURCE: Team Springfield, posted by Steve Horsman

One question that I see frequently on the Internet and in forum chat rooms has to do with flying with firearms. Whether you are traveling domestically with a handgun or a long gun, following the guidelines set forth by the individual airline and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is of the utmost importance.

Note that the airlines and TSA can (and do) change requirements occasionally, so be sure to always check current regulations. Click HERE to get the regs.

LOCAL LAWS
Equally as important as knowing the airline and TSA rules about flying with firearms is knowing the local firearm (and ammunition) laws where you are traveling through (layovers) and to. You also need to know the laws of your return flight / departure location — where you will be traveling out of when going home. What might be legal in one state, may just be a felony in another. It is always YOUR responsibility to check the laws of local jurisdictions any time you travel. And keep in mind that laws change regularly and that laws often vary for rifles, shotguns, and handguns.

SHORT AND SWEET
Before I get into the deets, here is the short and sweet on air travel with guns. Firearms must:

Be unloaded
Be locked in a hard-sided case / container
Be transported in checked baggage only
Be declared each time you present checked baggage

FREQUENT FIREARM FLYER
I frequently travel with firearms, and whether I’m heading to a shooting competition, a work-related convention, or a training event, the process has become familiar. I’ve learned how to make traveling with firearms as easy as possible.

For many though, flying can be stressful, and bringing along guns may create some additional anxiety. However, if you are knowledgeable, polite, and just follow the rules, traveling with firearms should become a smooth, streamlined process. And even if things don’t go as planned, keep calm and carry — creating issues for the people at the ticket counter will NOT make things easier.

CLARIFICATION
Before we go any further, and just to be clear, when I reference flying with firearms I mean, and only mean, flying with firearms that are in your checked luggage. Unless you have federal law-enforcement credentials, it is illegal to have a firearm in your carry-on or on your person when boarding an airplane!

POLICY PARTICULARS
Over the decades, I have flown on almost every big-name domestic airline. During my travels, I have noted that many of the airlines have slightly different policies as they relate to flying with firearms, especially if flying with ammo or internationally (but that’s a different topic entirely). My advice again is to know the airline’s policies before you leave for the airport (policies can be found on the airline’s website), to abide by the airline’s requests and to be polite, even if one airline’s policy is different from another.

TSA rules and procedures should be standard. Click here to go directly to the FIREARMS and AMMUNITION page.

And it’s not a bad idea to print the regulations so you have a copy with you at the airport, should the need arise to reference them.

PROPER PACKING
Let’s start with how to pack the firearm. Successful flying with firearms starts at home, with an unloaded gun. When I travel with my SAINT™ Edge AR-15, I always put the unloaded rifle inside a soft case and then place the soft case inside a hard plastic case — one that is specifically designed for carrying long guns. Some of my favorite hard-case brands are Pelican, Storm, and Explorer. I know there are other manufacturers out there, but these are the cases that I have tested and traveled with. You can also get some hard cases with foam inserts that are custom formed or cut specific to your model of firearm. And that’s pretty cool!

These hard, impact-resistant rifle cases are rugged. They are touted as crush-proof, dust-proof, and water-tight and stand up to frequent travel, and the abuse of baggage handlers who are having a bad day. Such cases have handles and wheels to make transportingmuch easier. There are also designated areas on the cases for placing padlocks. I highly suggest purchasing TSA-approved cables and locks for all of your gun cases. Flying can be a strain on the brain, and approved locks just make dealing with TSA that much easier and fast.

CURBSIDE — NO GO
Note that when arriving at the airport, you cannot check your luggage with the baggage handlers outside, which is sometimes referred to as “curbside check in.” You must take your gun case to the ticket counter to “declare” your firearm.

When it’s your turn with the ticketing agent, notify them [nicely] that you have an unloaded firearm to declare in your luggage. The ticket agent will ask you to fill out a firearm declaration card (for each firearm). Write your name and mailing address on the card, and then sign and date the back side. READ this card. You are declaring that you have a firearm and that the firearm is unloaded.

The agent may ask to see the unloaded firearm. They then will ask you to place the orange copy of the declaration card inside the case with the firearm and then LOCK the external hard case. The TSA agents are going to want to see this card when they scan your bag, so make sure it’s easily viewable / accessible.

Once you are checked in and your bags have been tagged, most airlines will have a representative escort you to the TSA area. Once there, the TSA agent will scan your bag and may open your bag for inspection (in my case, every single time). Once TSA gives you the green light, you are allowed to leave and head to security (hope you are TSA Pre-Check). And that should be the end of your firearm-related duties, until you land.

I have run into virtually no issues when traveling with firearms, with the rare and one exception of flying out of New York City. But that too is a topic for another article.

AMMUNITION ASIDE
Sidenote: I pack my ammunition and unloaded magazines in separate, small storage containers, in the same hard case as the gun or in another case if weight is an issue. If you pack ammunition in the same case that your firearm is in, it must be in the original ammunition packaging, or a hard box that is designed for ammunition.

I have had people advise me to load the ammunition into the firearm’s magazines. I would NOT, I repeat, NOT, do this. Also note that airlines have a weight limit on the amount of ammunition you can check in your luggage. And it’s never enough! So consider shipping your ammunition “ground” if you need a considerable amount, as might be the case for a multi-day match.

WHEELS DOWN — PRIORITY ONE
Once you’ve landed, head straight to baggage claim. Your gun case may come out on the carousel or it could be with over-sized baggage or held in the airline customer service area. Again, different airlines, different airports, do baggage delivery differently. Ask questions to locate your gun case as soon as possible.

Once your case is in your possession, and before you leave the airport, make sure your firearm(s) is actually still in the case. Always keep a description of the firearms you travel with — makes, models, and serial numbers minimum — with you in the event of loss or theft. Report loss / theft to the airline customer service rep and local law enforcement IMMEDIATELY.

HI-TECH TRACKING
Technology continues to improve our lives, and with the availability of smart luggage tracking devices, our future travels may become even more worry-free. I have not personally tested any of the GPS luggage trackers, but it’s on my list of to-dos. If you have a device you trust and like, drop me a line. I’m going to buy one soon, as these GPS tracking units seem like a good investment, an affordable piece of insurance, to guarantee that my gun arrives safe and sound to my final destination — and back home again.

READY TO FLY WITH FIREARMS
So now you have no excuse NOT to travel to the USPSA Multi-Gun Nationals. Registration is still open. 🙂 By following these simple travel guidelines you shouldn’t have any issues when flying with your new SAINT™ Edge rifle. Your only concern will be how well you are going to perform at the match! Best of luck with your travels and match results, fellow shooter — go book your airfare and get ready to “declare.”

Editor’s note: Since an AR15 can “come apart” easily, separating upper from lower, it can fit nicely into a shorter but perhaps deeper case, one that’s not so overtly screaming “RIFLE CASE.” I transport mine in this manner, and it’s also easier to carry a shorter case around.
— G. Zediker

The ONLY Way to Stop Kids from Shooting Up Schools

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

We all know it’s not guns, so what is it? Jason Anderson shares his thoughts on some root causes for these tragedies. READ MORE

troubled teen
It’s not easy being a kid nowadays. Pressures from bullies, social media, and more mean we must pay close attention to our children.

 

by Jason Anderson

Any time a child loses their life… Especially at the hands of a murderer, it’s a horrific tragedy.

But, anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that gun control is not the answer. (Unless you want to give up your freedoms and end up living in a place where only criminals have guns, or under a communist regime like North Korea.)

So, how in the world can we stop these school shootings then?

Well…the other day, I read about two young women who were sentenced to jail for smuggling drugs around the world. Apparently, some rich guy paid them to carry the “cargo” to different places.

One of the young women said she did it to increase her Instagram followers so she could have pictures of her jet-setting all over the world.

My point is, these days, our young people are tremendously influenced by social media. Back in the day, if there was a bully, you got in a fight in the cafeteria and that was that. But now, people can tease and harass each other on Facebook and all of the other social media sites so these poor kids can be tormented 24-7, even when they leave school.

Case in point: When I was in high school, I tried out for the basketball team. On the night of tryouts, I had the flu and was really sick. But, I wanted to tryout so badly I went anyway.In the middle of tryouts, I suddenly threw up all over the basketball court. (I’m talking large chunks everywhere.) I ran to the bathroom to clean up and they wouldn’t let me finish the tryout. Of course, some kids made fun of me for puking everywhere and I think it lasted for probably two days and that was it.

But, imagine if that happened today.

No doubt, someone would have videotaped me puking all over the court. It would be put on YouTube and Facebook. It would probably have a gazillion views by now of me puking and then running to the bathroom. I would probably be reminded of my puking event for weeks upon weeks. (There goes my high school dating life.)

Geez, it’s rough to be a kid today, don’t you think?

The thing is, since social media isn’t going anywhere, parents have to monitor their children more closely. They’ve got to monitor Facebook pages, Instagram accounts, and text messages. They need to take a more active interest in their kids’ lives.

When someone says: “The shooter showed no signs they were going to do this…” I find it hard to believe. There’s always signs, always cries for help, as small as they might be.

No parent wants to believe their kid could be a murderer (and I don’t think my kids could be either). But, that doesn’t mean I’m not going to check their web browsing history or their phone when they’re teenagers. While they might not be preparing to do a school shooting, I still want to make sure they’re not doing drugs or other bad things. That is my obligation and responsibility as a parent. Remember, you’re their parent first, and their friend second.

The bottom line is, I do wish kids treated each other better. But, I don’t see that changing because since the beginning of time, kids have been bullying and teasing each other.

So, parents need to step up to the plate more and watch their kids and help them when they can see their kids are struggling.

I wish there was a “magic” pill or better answer to solve this problem.

But, I can assure you, to maintain our freedoms, taking away gun rights is not the answer and never has been.

Remember, the Second Amendment isn’t a suggestion… It’s a right.

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 www.SpyEscape.com.

Texas Gov. Introduces “School and Firearm Safety Action Plan”

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Texas Gov. recently released his “Action Plan” in response to the Santa Fe incident. READ MORE

Gov. Abbott

SOURCE: texas.gov.com, AP

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott introduced a 44-page plan intended to keep schools safer. The focus is on increased law enforcement presence, more armed school personnel, better threat assessment, and better mental health interventions.

“This plan is a starting point, not an ending place,” said Governor Abbott. “It provides strategies that can be used before the next school year begins to keep our students safe when they return to school. This plan will make our schools safer and our communities safer.”

Abbott’s “School Firearm Safety Action Plan” resulted from a series of roundtable discussions hosted by the governor following the Sante Fe TX shooting on May 19.

The primary focus for the recommendations are on school security, but also suggests 5 firearm-specific measures, including fortifying criminal reporting that might influence NICS background check.

The plan also addresses Texas’ Safe Firearm Storage Law, which has recently come under scrutiny. Currently, the law only allows prosecution of parents for what’s deemed unsafe storage if their child is under 17 years of age. This absolved the father of the Santa Fe shooter from liability.

Abbott seeks to raise the age to 18, and increasing the penalty level to a 3rd-degree felony when access results in death or serious bodily injury, plus seeks to remove the “readily dischargeable” statutory definition.

The plan also encourages the state legislature to “consider the merits” of allowing courts to issue “red flag” or “extreme risk” protective orders. This would allow law enforcement, a district attorney, a school employee, or a family member to file a petition seeking the removal of firearms from a person suspected to be dangerous to himself or to others. Governor Abbott insists that such a law must follow due process by providing the person both a notice and a hearing, and that any such protective order would be for a limited duration of time, provide for mental health treatment, and offer a clear path to the full restoration of rights and return of firearms when the person is no longer deemed to be a danger.

Regarding proposed school measures: the plan outlines several measures which include increasing law enforcement presence, implementing behavior threat assessment programs, addressing the means to provide more secure school infrastructure, and active shooter and emergency response training.

Abbott’s “Action Plan” includes a section outlining how the school marshal program might be expanded, and also provide training that focuses more on firearms use. This program allows school districts to identify and train personnel, including teachers, to respond to active shooter situations with firearms. Under current law, school marshals who have direct contact with students are required to store their firearm while on campus, making the weapon hard to access and use in the event of a crisis. The proposal seeks to change this and allow marshals to keep their firearms on their person.

Abbott says he has identified nearly $110 million in total funding, including $70 million that is already or will soon be available.

READ Gov. Abbott’s proposal HERE

Trump Administration’s Proposed Rulemakings a Win-Win for America’s Firearms Industry, National Security

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

New propsals seek to “build a taller fence around a smaller yard,” and the upshot will benefit American sportsmen, and the industries that provide for them. READ HOW

trump

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

On Thursday, May 24, the Trump Administration published two rulemakings designed to enhance the competitiveness of American companies in the firearms and ammunition sectors, remove burdens for small businesses, and modernize export controls for the post-Cold War era. The moves will benefit both the domestic firearms industry and improve national security. The publication of the proposals also triggered a 45-day comment period during which members of the public can provide feedback on the plans and share their own experiences with the underlying regulations.

The rulemakings are part of a larger, longstanding project to modernize America’s export regime for military and “dual-use” equipment and technology. Dual-use items are those considered to have both military and civilian applications. The governing philosophy of the project is to “build a taller fence around a smaller yard” by strengthening controls on the most militarily sensitive items while allowing less sensitive material with well-established civilian uses and markets to be subject to a more business-friendly regulatory climate.

They two big players overseeing U.S. exports are the State Department, which administers the International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the U.S. Commerce Department, which handles the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The items regulated by the ITAR are on what is known as the U.S. Munitions List (USML), while those subject to the EAR are on the Commerce Control List (CCL).

Whether on the USML or CCL, however, the items are still subject to close government oversight, including the requirement in most cases that any person or entity wishing to export them to any foreign nation get a federally-issued license to do so.

Nevertheless, items on the USML controlled under ITAR are generally treated more strictly, with national and international security considerations trumping all other factors in the granting of licenses. Any business that manufactures an item on the USML, or even just a part or component of such an item, also has to register with the State Department and pay an annual fee, which is currently set at $2,250. This registration is required even if the manufacturer has no intent to ever export the items. Compliance fees, including for licenses, are also generally higher for USML items, given the complexity of the regulations and the more stringent vetting given to license applications.

Manufacturers of items on the CCL, or their parts or components, do not have to pay an annual registration fee to the Commerce Department. Moreover, regulation of these items is more flexible to promote the goal of increasing U.S. manufacturers’ and businesses’ worldwide competitiveness.

By properly apportioning export control between the two lists, the government will be able to apply maximum resources to overseeing the most consequential and sensitive equipment, while giving American businesses who manufacture consumer products a larger footprint in international markets. The result is greater security and a more robust U.S. economy.

Currently, most firearms and ammunition (with the exception of certain sporting shotguns and shotgun shells) are controlled under ITAR and the USML. This has led to a host of problems for gun-related businesses in the U.S. and made it more difficult for U.S. businesses in this sector to be competitive internationally.

First, many American firearm businesses are small operations that do not export their products and never intend to do so but still have to pay annual registration fees to the State Department because what they do is considered “manufacturing.” So if a U.S. company that manufacturers springs wants to branch out into magazine or recoil springs for firearms, for example, it has to pay the State Department’s registration fee, even if those springs are exclusively sold in the U.S.

On the other hand, if a foreign company wanted to use those springs in the firearms it manufactures abroad, it would have pay more for doing so because of all the ITAR red tape the U.S. spring maker would have to go through to export the springs. This makes the U.S. springs a less attractive option.

Two other problems that arose with the ITAR during the Obama administration concern what is considered controlled “technical data” and who is considered a regulated “manufacturer.”

As we reported at the time, part of building the “taller fence” for export control involved an initiative to tighten up rules for the “export” of “technical data.” In practice, this meant that publishers of technical information about firearms and ammunition – including exploded parts diagrams, gunsmithing tutorials, and handloading information – risked being swept up into the ITAR’s regulatory scope, particularly for items posted online.

Obama’s State Department also issued a confusing “guidance” document that expansively defined firearm “manufacturing” to include various common gunsmithing operations performed on existing firearms. This drove many smaller gunsmiths to limit or quit their business activity for fear of triggering the ITAR’s registration requirements or of incurring inadvertent violations that could bring ruinous penalties.

All of these problems would be alleviated if the Trump administration’s rules were enacted as proposed, as most non-automatic firearms of .50 caliber or less, as well as their parts, components, accessories, and magazines of up to 50 rounds capacity, would be moved from the USML to the CCL.

Another Obama-era ITAR change made it much more difficult for private individuals to travel abroad with personally owned firearms for lawful purposes such as hunting or competition because of an added requirement to document the “export” through an official website designed for commercial exporters. That requirement, unfortunately, would persist under the current version of the Commerce Department proposal but might be changed if affected parties explained their concerns during the comment period.

A further basis for comment could include the rules’ treatment of sound suppressors. Although these items are very common among hunters and recreational shooters both in the U.S. and abroad and do not provide the U.S. or its allies with any special military advantage, the published proposals would leave them on the USML.

The easiest way to file comments is through the U.S. government’s online regulatory portal, Regulations.gov. The State Department’s proposed rule and comment form are available at this link. Use this link for the Commerce Department’s proposal.

President Trump promised to be a friend to America’s gun owners, and these proposed rules show him making good on that pledge. Your input will encourage the Commerce and State departments to see these rules through to final enactment and help guide the process in the most positive direction possible. The NRA has long advocated for these changes and is extremely pleased to see progress being made toward that end.

PUBLIX Part Two: Publix Suspends Political Contributions Amid Statewide Protests

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Publix caves to shock-tactics orchestrated by David Hogg. Read what happened… MORE

david hogg die in

SOURCE: Tampa Bay Times

The supermarket giant acknowledges its support of Adam Putnam has “led to a divide in our community.”

Publix, facing consumer boycotts, student protests, and threats to its wholesome image for its generous support of Adam Putnam’s bid for governor, announced May 25 it is suspending all corporate campaign contributions immediately.

The popular retailer, facing a rapidly escalating public relations crisis fueled largely by social media and the debate over guns, issued a statement at the start of the three-day Memorial Day holiday weekend acknowledging the “divide” that it has caused by its unprecedented financial support of Putnam’s campaign.

“At Publix, we respect the students and members of the community who have chosen to express their voices on these issues,” the company said. “We regret that our contributions have led to a divide in our community. We did not intend to put our associates and the customers they serve in the middle of a political debate. At the same time, we remain committed to maintaining a welcoming shopping experience for our customers. We would never knowingly disappoint our customers or the communities we serve.”

The company’s action suggested that the furor over its contributions was having a significant effect as the 2018 political campaign attracts growing attention from Florida voters.

David Hogg and other students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, the scene of a February shooting, organized a 4 p.m. “die-in” Friday at a Publix parking lot in Coral Springs.

Students drew chalk outlines of human bodies and lay still on the floor for 12 minutes.

Moments before the protest began, Publix released its statement.

Several dozen protesters followed through with the protest. Some held sunflowers as they lay sprawled on the floor of the grocery store. They were flanked by a smaller group of counter-protesters chanting “NRA” and “Trump,” but the demonstration was peaceful. Officers with the Coral Springs Police Department stood by during the event.

Publix is Florida’s largest private employer with more than 175,000 employees. The company has stores in seven southeastern states.

Publix Supermarkets, Publix executives and family members have donated at least $670,000 to the campaign of Putnam, the elected state agriculture commissioner and an opponent of new gun restrictions who called himself “a proud #NRA sellout” last year.

Check out ADAM PUTNAM HERE

 

PUBLIX Part One: David Hogg Puts Publix In Crosshairs

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

David Hogg, a survivor of the  shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., demands $1-million donation and anti-NRA pledge from this supermarket giant. READ ABOUT IT

david hogg

SOURCE: AP and Washington Times

The public face of the gun control movement demanded $1 million Thursday from the Florida-based grocery chain in a tweet, just one day after calling for a “die-in” protest at its stores.

Publix is being targeted by Mr. Hogg for its support of Adam Putnam, a Florida Republican gubernatorial candidate who is currently the state’s agricultural commissioner. The Tampa Bay Times reported earlier this week that Publix had given $670,000 during the last three years to Putnam campaigns.

Mr. Hogg not only sought atonement money from the grocery chain in Thursday’s tweet, he also demanded a pledge of ideological fealty to the gun-control movement.

“I call on @Publix to donate double the money they gave to Putman [sic] to the Stoneman Douglas Victims fund, $1,000,000. And never support an A rated NRA politician again,” he wrote.

The monetary demand came a day after Mr. Hogg called for disruptive demonstrations Friday at all Publix stores, one of the biggest chains in the Southeast and especially Florida, where it is the largest private employer.

“@Publix is a #NRASellOut,” he tweeted. “In Parkland we will have a die in the Friday (the 25th) before memorial day weekend. Starting at 4pm for 12 min inside our 2 Publix stores. Just go an lie down starting at 4. Feel free to die in with us at as many other @Publix as possible.”

When asked by the Tampa Bay Times about its support for Mr. Putnam, a Publix spokesman did not mention guns.

“As the hometown candidate, Publix has had a long-standing relationship with Commissioner Putnam,” spokesman Brian West said. “We support pro-business candidates, and believe Commissioner Putnam will make a great governor.”

Julie Golob Named To Hunting and Shooting Sports Conservation Council

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Great news for hunters and recreational shooters: Julie Golob, pro shooter for Smith & Wesson will help lead the way for expanded outdoor opportunities for us all. READ MORE

julie golob

SOURCE: NRA

Last week, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke announced the members of the Hunting and Shooting Sports Conservation Council. In addition to Chris Cox, the executive director of NRA-ILA, Smith & Wesson pro shooter and NRA Board Member Julie Golob has been named to the Council.

“What an exciting time for our hunting and shooting sports! This Shooting Sports Council is yet another way Secretary Zinke and staff is making the expansion of our great American heritage a priority,” said Golob. “It’s an honor for me to be a part of it alongside so many influential and truly passionate leaders in outdoors sports.”

“America’s hunters and recreational shooters have a champion in Secretary Ryan Zinke,” said Cox. “Zinke is fighting for our sportsmen and women to have greater access to our public lands. I am pleased to work with the Trump Administration’s new Hunting and Shooting Sports Conservation Council to make it easier for Americans to enjoy our public lands.”

The Council was established earlier this year to provide the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture with advice on recreational hunting, recreational shooting sports, wildlife and habitat conservation. Additionally, the Council will examine ways to encourage partnership among the public, sporting conservation organizations, state, tribal, territorial, and the federal government.

“Over a century ago, Teddy Roosevelt established the American conservation ethic — best science, best practices, greatest good, longest term,” said Secretary Zinke. “These sportsmen carry on the American conservation ethic in the modern day. Bringing these experts together will be key to ensuring the American tradition of hunting and shooting, as well as the conservation benefits of these practices, carries on.”

Anti-Gun Democrat Proposes Banning Semi-Autos and Going After “Resisters”

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Don’t believe the smoke screen: the anti-gun agenda won’t rest until they’ve got your gun… READ MORE

swallwell

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

The May 11, 2018 headline of the USA Today op-ed said it all. Anti-gun Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) last week advocated for legislation to ban an as-yet undetermined class of semi-automatic firearms and to “go after resisters” who refuse to relinquish their lawfully-acquired firearms. Lest anyone mistake his intentions, Swalwell followed up with a lengthy NBC News interview this week in which he made clear that his own proposal is a departure from prior gun bans that allowed those who obtained the firearms when they were lawful to keep them. Swalwell said that after thinking “about the different ways to address it … I concluded the only way to do this is to get those weapons out of our communities.”

According to the NBC piece, Swalwell is modeling his own proposal on laws passed during the 1990s in Australia. The article then inaccurately states, “But while Australia comes up often in gun debates, almost no prominent figures have proposed national laws that would demand that gun owners turn in existing weapons en masse.”

The truth is that anyone who suggests the United States should adopt Australian-style gun control — a club that includes such infamous gun ban advocates as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — is by definition advocating for the forcible disarming of “resisters.” That, in fact, was the signature feature of the Australian approach.

The widespread disarming of Australian citizens occurred through a comprehensive scheme that proceeded as follows. What is no longer debatable, however, is the true agenda and ideology that lies behind the gun control project in America. It is the abolition of the right to gun ownership in America as we know it … “resisters” be damned.

First, the various political subdivisions within Australia unanimously agreed to a uniform ban on large categories of popular firearms. The ban was both retroactive and prospective.

Second, the government instituted “amnesty” periods, which allowed those who had previously acquired the newly-banned firearms lawfully to surrender them to the government for a fixed and nonnegotiable rate of compensation.

Third, and most importantly, anyone who refused to relinquish their formerly lawful property was to be treated as an armed criminal, with all the physical jeopardy and legal consequences that entails.

The Australian government also uses a “may-issue” licensing scheme for firearm acquisition, which among other things requires an applicant to show a “genuine reason” for needing the gun. Self-defense — which the U.S. Supreme Court considers the “central component” of America’s right to keep and bear arms – is not recognized under Australian law as a permissible reason for the acquisition, ownership, or use of a firearm.

Australian-style gun control, in other words, is completely foreign to and incompatible with America’s history, tradition, and rights of firearm ownership. Simply put, there is no reconciling Australian-style gun control with America’s Second Amendment, a fact which even some gun control advocates in their more candid moments are willing to admit.

If Swalwell has distinguished himself at all from other American advocates of the Australian approach, it’s because he is willing to be more forthcoming about the fact that it would turn millions of formerly law-abiding Americans into armed “criminals” with the stroke of a pen.

In his NBC interview, however, he tried to have it both ways.

First, he insisted:

I’m not proposing a roundup or confiscation. It would be like anything else that’s banned: If you’re caught with it there would be a steep penalty. Any fear of ATF agents going door to door to collect assault weapons is unfounded and not what is proposed here. They don’t go collecting drugs that are banned or any other substance or weapon that’s banned and I’m not proposing that here.

That, of course, is a lie. Law enforcement agents with enough probable cause that someone possesses drugs or other contraband to get a warrant absolutely do go after the contraband. Some might even say they are duty-bound to do so. A quick Internet search will show you what that looks like in the real world.

Anybody who illegally possesses a contraband firearm potentially risks the same treatment. Swalwell, who touts his credentials as a former prosecutor, surely knows that.

But when asked to elaborate about the “stiff penalties” that would supposedly ensure compliance with his scheme, Swalwell seemingly contradicted his no-confiscation stance, stating, “I’d want to first get the gun.”

To their credit, NBC asked Swalwell directly whether he was “prepared for some of the confrontations that might erupt from this,” adding, “You’re surely familiar with the slogan, ‘I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands.’” Swalwell brushed aside the question, indicating that Parkland survivors who have been advocating for gun control have given him “courage” for resolute action.

The actions he is calling for, however, carry inherent risks of further unnecessary loss of innocent life.

But that is what the gun “debate” has come to in America, with at least one gun control advocate so emboldened that he’s openly willing to put violent confrontations on the table to advance the agenda.

Whether Rep. Swalwell is serious or whether he is just hoping to move the Overton Window on what is considered legitimate rhetoric in the realm of gun control policy is perhaps debatable.

What is no longer debatable, however, is the true agenda and ideology that lies behind the gun control project in America. It is the abolition of the right to gun ownership in America as we know it … “resisters” be damned.

The National Rifle Association Sues New York!

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

The NRA has filed suit against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, New York State Department of Financial Services over alleged attack on First Amendment Rights. READ MORE

nra sues cuomo

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

The National Rifle Association of America (“NRA”) last Friday announced that it filed a lawsuit against the New York State Department of Financial Services (“DFS”), New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, and DFS Superintendent Maria T. Vullo alleging violations of the NRA’s First Amendment rights.

Filed on May 11, 2018, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, the lawsuit claims that Cuomo, Vullo, and DFS engaged in a “campaign of selective prosecution, backroom exhortations, and public threats” designed to coerce banks and insurance companies to withhold services from the NRA. The NRA argues that such tactics vastly overstep DFS’s regulatory mandate, and seek to suppress the speech of Second Amendment supporters and retaliate against the NRA and others for their political advocacy. The lawsuit seeks millions of dollars in damages to redress harms inflicted by the DFS campaign.

“Political differences aside, our client believes the tactics employed by these public officials are aimed to deprive the NRA of its First Amendment right to speak freely about gun-related issues and in defense of the Second Amendment,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel to the NRA. “We believe these actions are outside the authority of DFS and fail to honor the principles which require public officials to protect the constitutional rights of all citizens.”

Among other things, the lawsuit cites a pair of “guidance” letters issued on April 19, 2018, by the DFS to the CEOs of banks and insurance companies doing business in New York. Styled as regulatory “risk management” advisories, the letters encourage institutions to “take prompt actions” to manage “reputational risk” posed by dealings with “gun promotion organizations.” The same day, Cuomo issued a press release in which Vullo directly urged “all insurance companies and banks doing business in New York” to “discontinue[] their arrangements with the NRA.”

The lawsuit claims that the “guidance” letters were accompanied by back-channel communications and targeted enforcement actions, which further reinforced the Cuomo administration’s message that it is bad business in New York to do business with the NRA.

The lawsuit explains that the DFS mandate — preceded by an “investigation” orchestrated by gun-control activists into insurance programs sponsored by the NRA — has already caused several insurance companies to sever relationships with the NRA and to plan to cancel the insurance policies of law-abiding New York consumers. According to the complaint, the directive of Cuomo and Vullo has had its intended effect — to advance Cuomo’s longstanding opposition to gun-rights supporters and to distort insurance markets in the service of a political agenda.

The lawsuit says, “As a direct result of this coercion, multiple firms have succumbed to Defendants’ demands and entered into consent orders with DFS that compel them to terminate longstanding, beneficial business relationships with the NRA both in New York and elsewhere. Tellingly, several provisions in the orders bear no relation to any ostensible regulatory infraction. Instead, the orders prohibit lawful commercial speech for no reason other than that it carries the NRA brand.”

On May 2, 2018 and May 7, 2018, Lockton Companies, LLC and Chubb Ltd., respectively, announced they will pay millions of dollars in fines to DFS and cease doing business with the NRA — for no other reason than many of the insurance programs with which they are associated carry the NRA brand. On May 9, 2018, Lloyd’s of London announced that it is directing insurance underwriters to terminate any existing partnerships [with the NRA].

The lawsuit explains that these outcomes are the culmination of years of political activism by Cuomo against the NRA and gun rights organizations. As recently as April 20, 2018, Cuomo called the NRA an “extremist organization” and urged New York companies “to revisit their ties to the NRA and consider their reputations…”

In the face of such attacks, the NRA continues to educate the public about the Second Amendment, defend the NRA and its members against political and media attacks, and galvanize participation in the political process. The NRA claims that in response, Cuomo and DFS are taking actions to silence the organization.

Citing the Supreme Court’s landmark Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan case, the lawsuit argues that “viewpoint discrimination applied through ‘threat[s] of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion, persuasion, and intimidation’ violates the Constitution where, as here, such measures chill protected First Amendment activities.”

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.

Oliver North Named New President Of The NRA

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Lt. Colonel Oliver North, USMC (Ret.) is the new president of the National Rifle Association of America. READ MORE

oliver north

SOURCE: The Washington Post

Former NRA president Pete Brownell announced last Monday that he has decided not to seek election to another term as president so that he can devote his full energy and time to his family business.

North is a popular speaker before the group and brings star power at a time when gun-control advocates seek to seize on momentum against the gun lobby in the wake of the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history and one of the deadliest school shootings.

North announced he would retire from his career as a Fox News host effective immediately. He said in a statement that the NRA board was giving him a few weeks to get his affairs in order before starting his new gig.

NRA executive vice president and CEO Wayne LaPierre called North’s appointment “the most exciting news for our members since Charlton Heston became President of our Association.” Heston famously said that his gun could only be taken “from my cold, dead hands.” LaPierre called North “a legendary warrior for American freedom, a gifted communicator, and skilled leader.”

Robert J. Spitzer, chairman of political science at the State University of New York at Cortland and an expert on firearms and Second Amendment issues, called North the closest thing the NRA has to a celebrity “and maybe they figure they need a more prominent person at the helm, as opposed to the string of relative unknowns who have served in recent years.”

North, 74, first emerged into the spotlight in the 1980s for his role in the Iran-Contra scandal, involving the sale of weapons to Iran with proceeds being funneled to right-wing rebel groups in Nicaragua. He has since run for office, written several books and is frequently on the speaking circuit.

He says he’s eager to take on this new role soon and is retiring from Fox News, effective immediately. “I am honored to have been selected by the NRA Board to soon serve as this great organization’s President,” North said. “I appreciate the board initiating a process that affords me a few weeks to set my affairs in order, and I am eager to hit the ground running as the new NRA President.”