Category Archives: Gun Rights

SKILLS: First Responder Realities

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Increasingly, Americans might find themselves faced with a crisis involving a “shooter.” Here are thoughts from Team Springfield Armory’s Kyle Schmidt on the citizen’s role. READ ON

first responder

SOURCE: Team Springfield, Kyle Schmidt

No doubt — there are more frequent reports of criminals attacking citizens. It has become more commonplace at big events or where large groups of people gather together. These environments make easy targets for the criminals.

Unfortunately, when there are no “good guys with guns,” the bad guys don’t really need to be very skilled at whatever attack method they use, and they are highly likely to injure someone.

#GOODGUYWITHAGUN
Likewise, there are more situations where a citizen thwarts the criminal attack before any or further injury occurs. The news reports though are hard to find most of the time — due to the lack of mainstream media reporting — but it happens more than you might think and the stories are out there if you know where to look.

And personally, as an American, I think this is awesome. Citizens helping protect each other…what says “United We Stand” more than that?

From the news sound bite, though, this may seem all too simple. Realistically any “active shooter scenario” or other type of attack is a very complex and continuously evolving process. And difficult to successfully get through because there are countless scenarios and variables.

DECISION MAKING 301
If an attack situation allows, it makes sense to 1) get away from the threat completely or 2) hide in a safe location until law enforcement arrives. Unfortunately, those options may not always be available.

What the situation requires at that point is advanced decision making; complex, chaotic decision making. Ideally, your decisions should be based on situations you have thought about, prepared and trained for (what ifs?) prior to becoming a responsible concealed carrying citizen.

How you handle the scenario starts with identifying what your priorities are or what you want to accomplish. Slight changes in the situation may change the priority or action you choose to take.

Everyone’s priorities are different… None are wrong, they are just different.

If I am out with my family, friends or acquaintances, their safety will be my number one priority.

If I am out by myself, the safety of the innocent people is my number one priority.

If it is just me and the criminal, my safety will be my number one priority.

To break it down, we all have a built-in priority hierarchy when it comes to saving lives and preventing the criminal from trying to injure or kill. As stated above, my priorities are:

Family
Friends / Acquaintances
All other people
Self
Criminal

I could further complicate this with the concept of life years saved, but I think you get the idea.

RAPID RESPONSE
Let’s skip a couple of steps and jump right to response; you decide to take action and use your concealed Springfield Armory XD-(M)® pistol to stop the criminal. The very first thing to remember / consider is SAFETY — all of the firearms rules that everyone works so hard to learn and apply. Drawing your gun to stop a criminal does not relieve you of your safety responsibilities. Now, more than ever, you will need to adhere to them. If you inadvertently injure someone, other than the criminal, it will be a serious problem.

SUSPECT DOWN — HEADS UP — GUN AWAY
Let’s jump ahead again. You have successfully stopped the suspect and saved some lives. #GoodSamaritan

But once the (only) suspect is down, the problems are not over.

At this point, another significant issue is of immediate concern: That others involved, citizens and law enforcement, do not recognize that you are the good guy. You and the suspect are the only ones that know for sure that you were the good guy who stopped the bad guy. You cannot assume that others recognize what transpired. There may also be more than one law-abiding concealed carrier on site.

In fact, this is still a very dangerous situation. If you can confirm the scene is safe, put your gun away. This is the best way to avoid another Good Samaritan or LE agent engaging YOU as if you were the suspect.

THE 411 ON 911
Since virtually everyone now has a cell phone, there will probably be multiple calls being placed to 9-1-1. If you can, call 9-1-1 yourself to inform the police of your situation. One of the most important things you can do is give the 9-1-1 operator YOUR physical description. It’s also critical to then follow their directions. Most fine details about the incident are unimportant at this point, but responding officers need a quick description of you; gender, race, hair color, height, clothing, etc. #JustTheBasics

If you are with someone, instruct them to do the same, remembering only pertinent information is required at this point. There will be plenty of time during the subsequent investigation for the fine details.

PREPARE FOR POLICE ARRIVAL
Most police officers are extremely good at evaluating what is going on, before they take action. However, realize that they likely have received numerous (possibly inaccurate) reports of a shooter and may have been given more than one description. They have probably also received a description of you (the good guy) by those who saw you shooting.

When the police are on scene, they will most likely treat everyone (especially those with a gun) like a suspect until they can get some investigating done and figure out what actually happened.

Remember their goal is to make the scene safe and get aid to any victims. But they need to locate and stop any threats before they can safely do that.

My advice for when the police arrive – just comply with what they tell you do. Nothing new, as that’s what you should always do. The responding officers don’t know who you are or anyone else for that matter. Trying to convince them that you are not the bad guy (especially while you are still holding the gun) will just make things more difficult.

DUTY CALLS
If you are going to be a responsible, armed citizen; make it your duty to be prepared both physically (by becoming a competent, skilled, safe shooter) and mentally (by knowing how and when to safely take action, and what to do when you have stopped the criminal). Discuss, prepare and plan for this type of situation with your loved ones (also) on a regular basis. Preparation before an attack happens, may just save the lives of your very important “priorities”, and that is absolutely worth the investment.

 

Surprise: Study Finds No Rise in Violent Crime Attributable to Adopting Right-to-Carry Laws

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Another try. Another fail. Recent study concludes there’s zero relationship between legal concealed carry laws and violence. READ MORE

ccw

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

As we’ve noted recently, much research purporting to demonstrate connections between access to guns or right-to-carry laws and increases in crime is seriously flawed. Often it’s an attempt to curtail or eliminate Americans’ rights under the Second Amendment rather than unbiased scientific research.

One recent study bucked that trend, however, finding no evidence of a link between access to firearms and increases in crime. “State Level Firearm Concealed-Carry Legislation and Rates of Homicide and Other Violent Crime,” (Hamill, Hernandez, Bailey, Zielinski, Matos, & Schiller, 2018), examined an expansive dataset, encompassing all 50 states and the District of Columbia — from 1986 to 2015 — to determine whether a relationship existed between liberalization of access to legal concealed carry of firearms and rates of both violent and nonviolent crime.

The 30 years’ worth of crime data comprised state-level crime rates for homicides, violent crime, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and burglary from the Department of Justice Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provided partially redundant figures, including state-based rates of homicide overall and firearm-specific homicide. State-specific rates of unemployment were provided by the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, and poverty rates were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Hamill et al. (2018) defined the ease with which state residents could obtain a carry permit in two ways:

On a four-point scale: (1) no carry; (2) may-issue; (3) shall-issue; or, (4) unrestricted (i.e., constitutional carry)

With a simpler, bipolar system which grouped the no-carry and may-issue schemes, versus the shall-issue and unrestricted arrangements
Using a form of linear regression modeling which allowed for multiple predictor and control variables as well as correlations among error terms (due to the time-based nature of the data), the authors estimated the various UCR and CDC crime statistics as a function of ease of obtaining carry permits, after controlling for state and year. No significant relationships were noted between ease of carry — whether measured on the four-point or bipolar scales — and rates of crime in any of the UCR or CDC categories. Repeating the analyses, but additionally controlling for level of poverty and unemployment, the Hamill team again found no statistical relationships between the ease with which carry permits could be obtained — regardless of measurement scheme — and crime rates in any category.

The authors concluded:

After adjusting for several population and demographic factors, we demonstrated that the rates of homicide and violent crime were not significantly increased after state laws were passed making access to concealed-carry permits less restricted. These important findings should inform further public policy research to help determine root causes and solutions to firearm-related homicide and violent crime in the future. (Hamill et al., 2018, p. 5)

As the authors noted, the study was correlational in nature and did not demonstrate causation (or lack thereof). Additionally, there were variables with potential explanatory power that were not included in the models, because the authors plan to do so “as a topic of future research” (Hamill et al., 2018, p. 7). Yet, however unlikely it may be that research such as this will convince many in the anti-gun crowd — whose minds seem closed to objective data which conflict with the “bad gun” narrative — it is refreshing to see objective minds investigate the association between guns and crime with the intent of letting the data write the story, rather than seeking evidence to buttress already-worn arguments.

More Proof That Being a “Celebrity” Does Not Make You Smart

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Intellectual giant Tom Arnold claims that “80-percent of gun owners shoot themselves or their own families.” REALLY?

tom arnold

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

In a November 30 tweet, Tom Arnold, famous for being married to Roseanne Barr and making a few really bad movies, has proven that he knows nothing about guns, gun owners or firearm misuse.

Here is his exact tweet:

“This explains why 80% of gun owners shoot themselves or
members of their own families.”

Really? It’s a claim that is so absurd it hardly needs to be refuted, except that these days the media and many uninformed anti-gun activists might just believe it.

Here is the reality.

Let’s assume that there are 100 million gun owners in the United States. Some estimates are higher than that, and some lower, but it’s a reasonable estimate. That means that for Arnold’s ridiculous claim to be true, there would have to be more than 80 million instances where people shot themselves or their family member in their lifetimes.

So if we assume that the average American lives sixty years at an age where they can lawfully possess a firearm, it would mean there would have been on average more than 1 million shootings each year. And, it would mean that there would have been over 2,500 shootings each day! Obviously, these would be in addition to any shootings that were not self-inflicted or perpetrated against a family member. Needless to say, this isn’t happening.

Anti-gun politicians and activists have long used suspect statistics to boost their position. They conflate homicides and suicides and include accidents to exaggerate the amount of “violence” committed with guns. They count “children” as anyone under the age of 24 to inflate the number of “child” shooting victims. They completely ignore jurisdictions with high rates of firearm ownership but low rates of firearm crime, to advance their agenda of more and more restrictions on gun ownership.

But this claim by Tom Arnold is clear evidence that opponents of gun ownership, especially celebrities and media hungry politicians, cannot be trusted to make honest arguments.

Perhaps that is because it would require a little effort to learn the truth. Or, it may well be that it is due to the simple fact that the truth does not support their increasingly radical positions.

 

Gun Control Fail: California Firearm Homicides Up 18 Percent

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

California, a state with every gun control imaginable, witnessed an 18 percent rise in firearm homicides from 2014 to 2016. READ IT ALL

police line

SOURCE: Breitbart, AWR Hawkins

This rise in firearm homicides comes despite the fact that Democrats, gun control groups, and the establishment media constantly claim that states with the strictest gun controls see lower rates of violence and death.

California has universal background checks, gun registration requirements, red flag laws (i.e., Gun Violence Restraining Orders), a ten-day waiting period for gun purchases, an “assault weapons” ban, a one-gun-per-month limit on handgun purchases, a minimum firearm purchase age of 21, a ban on campus carry, a “good cause” restriction for concealed carry permit issuance, and controls on the purchase of ammunition. The ammunition controls limit law-abiding Californians to buying ammunition from state-approved vendors–all of whom are in-state sellers–and adds a fee to any ammunition bought online, also requiring that ammunition to be shipped to a state-approved vendor for pickup.

Additionally, the state mandates gun free zones in businesses where alcohol is sold for on-site consumption. Therefore, the few concealed carry permit holders in the state must enter myriad restaurants without any means of self-defense. This provides a target-rich environment for attackers who want to be sure no one can shoot back when they strike. We last saw this on November 7, 2018, when an attacker opened fire with a handgun in the gun-free Borderline Bar & Grill in Thousand Oaks, California.

Despite all the stringent gun controls a bill filed by Assemblyman Marc Levine (CA-D-10) admits California firearm homicides were up between from 2014 to 2016. The bill says, “Although California has the toughest gun laws in the nation, more effort is necessary to curtail gun violence. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation found that from 2014 to 2016 gun homicides increased 18 percent.” In light of this gun control failure the language of the bill goes on to suggest more gun control.

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

 

Boulder’s AR-15 Certification Ordinance Sure Sounds Like A Test Run For A Gun Registry

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Boulder, Colorado calls for nothing less than an out-and-out registry to allow “grandfather clause” possession of AR-15s. READ MORE

boulder ar 15 ban

SOURCE: NRA-ILA, Matt Vespa

Remember when Boulder, Colorado banned the ownership of AR-15 rifles? They also banned high-capacity magazines and bump stocks, giving gun owners with such magazines until July 15, 2018 to either sell them or dispose of them –whatever that means. Most likely, you’ll have to turn them over to the authorities. Now, there is a grandfather clause allowing residents who already owned AR-15s to keep them as long as they get a certificate by the local sheriff’s office. Well, that date is rapidly approaching. AR-15 owners have until December 27 to certify their weapons. If owners fail to do this, they won’t be allowed to own their rifles within city limits. So far, only 85 rifles have been certified (via Denver Post):

“Boulder police have certified 85 assault weapons to residents with less than a month to go before all such firearms will need to be verified or removed from the city.

A ban on the sale or possession of assault weapons, high-capacity magazines and bump stocks was passed unanimously in May by Boulder city council. Guns already owned by residents were grandfathered in; council gave residents until the end of the year to obtain a certificate.

Certification is not a registry; the department keeps no records or paperwork of any kind. The only information they have is a handwritten count, said Boulder police Sgt. Dave Spraggs. Eighty-seven certificates have been issued to date. Two of those were redundancies, for the same weapon shared between a husband and wife.”

This is nonsense. And yes, it may not be a registry, but it sure sounds like a test run. We all know that the anti-gun Left wants to shred the Constitution, ban firearms, and confiscate them by force if necessary. How can one do that efficiently? You need a gun registry, which is why the universal background check push is such a fraud. We have enough laws on the books that prevents criminals and nutcases from committing heinous acts. In recent months, we’ve seen that such laws are not enforced all the time, however. Just look at the Navy Yard Shooting, Dylann Roof’s preventable hate crime in South Carolina, and the Sutherland Springs shooting in Texas, where an Air Force veteran, who served a year in jail after a 2012 court martial for domestic violence, was allowed to purchased an AR-15 because…the Air Force did not inform the FBI of his conviction. The recent school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas in Broward County, Florida was also preventable.

I’ll let Tom Knighton at our sister site Bearing Arms sign off on this one:

Councilman Brockett thinks he wants to see these guns gone, but he doesn’t understand what that world would look like. He doesn’t get that with every gun unavailable to the law-abiding citizen, there’s another gun the criminals can use without worrying about whether their victims have a way to respond.

That way lies chaos. It leads to horrific crimes that no one can stop, crimes like the gang violence plaguing Mexico where the average citizen is essentially disarmed. You’re deluded if you think the disarmed populace doesn’t play into the cartels’ plans.

I’m not saying it would happen overnight, but it would embolden criminals.

As it stands, Boulder will still have people with these rifles. It’ll have them, and that will keep the worst of this kind of thing away. It’ll let the gun grabbers live in the delusion that they’re somehow safer, at least for a little while.

But it doesn’t change the fact that this is wrong, stupid, and immoral.

Wrong, stupid, and immoral — excellent words to describe American liberalism.

 

Anti-Gun Democrat Congressman Invokes Nuclear Option Against Resistors of Firearm Confiscation

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Whoa… If he didn’t mean it he shouldn’t have said it. Read about Swalwell’s “Armageddon Confiscation” threat HERE

swalwell

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Well, it’s just before Thanksgiving, and nothing gets you into the holiday spirit like a U.S. Congressman who raises the specter of unleashing a nuclear attack against fellow Americans to demonstrate just how darned committed he is to mass firearm confiscation.

For those who were looking for yet another reason to purchase modern semiautomatic firearms and extra magazines for yourselves and your loved ones this holiday sales season, we give you the comments of Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA).

Swalwell, you may recall, gained some headlines for himself earlier this year when he proposed banning various semiautomatic firearms, forcing current owners to surrender them to the government, and “go[ing] after” resisters.

Last week, he made it clear in a Twitter exchange that he meant what he said.

Responding to another Twitter user who commented that an attempt to repeal the Second Amendment and ban and seize guns would provoke a war, Swallwell stated: “And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit.” He added, “I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.”

When confronted with the obvious import of his words — that he was suggesting nuclear weapons could be used on American soil against resisters of firearm confiscation — Swalwell backpedaled and tried to reframe his comments.

“Don’t be so dramatic,” he tweeted. “No one is nuking anyone or threatening that. I’m telling you this is not the 18th Century. The argument that you would go to war with your government if an assault weapons ban was in place is ludicrous and inflames the gun debate. Which is what you want.”

Later, as backlash continued to mount, Swalwell changed his story again and claimed his reference to America’s nuclear arsenal was merely a “joke” and “sarcasm.”

So which Swalwell story are we supposed to believe?

If it’s the first one, there’s apparently no option that he would consider off the table for enforcing firearm confiscation. This includes destroying entire communities, killing untold numbers of innocent bystanders, rendering large areas of land uninhabitable, all to annihilate (and presumably make an example of) anyone who stood in the way of his plans.

If it’s the second one, he’s pointing out that the idea of resisting a federal firearm confiscation order is “ludicrous” because the 18th Century’s relative parity between the unorganized militia and the then-recognized government no longer exists, even if the nuclear option is off the table. Yet this also implies that he could foresee using sophisticated military technology other than nuclear weapons against resistors.

If we’re to believe the third story, we’re all just too stuffy and serious to recognize the obvious comedic intent the U.S. Congressman had when he referenced nuclear weapons in describing the futility of anyone resisting the government’s attempt to violate their fundamental constitutional rights. The historical basis of the Second Amendment, in other words, is but a joke to Eric Swalwell.

Whichever option you choose, it is incredible even by the low standards of modern political rhetoric that Swalwell would be the one accusing others of being “dramatic” and “inflam[ing] the gun debate. We just don’t see anything funny about politicians and reporters whose idea of a joke is threatening to bomb fellow Americans or slandering law-abiding Americans for exercising their constitutional rights.

And even if he didn’t mean what he actually said (always a possibility with anti-gun politicians), we can still give thanks that Eric Swalwell is not and almost certainly never will be trusted with the launch codes for America’s nuclear arsenal.

But it’s perhaps not surprising that he could be so cavalier about subjects many gun-owning Americans take very seriously. Despite the political left’s mantras of tolerance, diversity, and inclusion, many are proudly ignorant of and indifferent to the types of lives led by millions of ordinary Americans who happen not to inhabit America’s largest coastal cities.

Also weighing into Swalwell’s Twitter debacle this week was Nina Burleigh, Newsweek’s national politics correspondent and, according to her official Newsweek bio, “an award-winning journalist and the author of five books.”

With such impressive journalistic credentials covering U.S. politics, you would think that Ms. Burleigh would have at least caught on that AR-15s and similar guns are common and popular firearms in America, even if she didn’t know that they are in fact America’s most popular class of rifles.

But to think so would be overestimating Nina Burleigh.

As Swalwell attempted to reframe his initial tweet, Burleigh leapt to his defense with a tweet of her own aimed at the NRA’s Dana Loesch: “Almost every single person I’ve ever heard of with an AR-15 has been a mass murderer. Based on Twitter sample the rest of them are scarily paranoid. Get on the right side of history.”

And even if it’s possible that Burleigh herself doesn’t personally know a single one of the many, many millions of Americans who own and lawfully use AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles, you might think she would have at least read about some of them, again considering she works in the media.

For example, she might have read about Stephen Willeford, who used his AR-15 to end a mass shooting in a Texas church and to prevent the perpetrator from escaping.

There’s also Sarah Merkle, who as a 15-year-old testified against the then-pending ban in Maryland on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles. She explained that the AR-15 was the type of rifle she used as a member of the Maryland State Rifle Team and that her competitive accomplishments provided her with college scholarship opportunities she otherwise would not have had. She also explained that rifles of any type are used in only a very small percentage of firearm-related homicides in the U.S.

Also making the news as an AR-15 owner was U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who during the debate over the Democrats’ proposed “assault weapons” ban in 2013 noted that “I own an AR-15 and I have done nothing wrong by owning the gun.”

Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that Burleigh was also joking and that we just aren’t sophisticated to understand her rapier-like wit.

Call us party poopers, but we just don’t see anything funny about politicians and reporters whose idea of a joke is threatening to bomb fellow Americans or slandering law-abiding Americans for exercising their constitutional rights.

mushroom cloud

 

California: CA DOJ Issues Consumer Alert Regarding Use of Non-REAL IDs for Firearm Purchases

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Is this really necessary, or is it nothing more than another deterrent to citizens wishing to purchase a firearm? READ ABOUT IT

california

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Earlier this year in March, we provided information regarding the use of Non-REAL-IDs for firearm purchases.

On Tuesday, November 20, Attorney General Becerra issued a consumer alert regarding the Use of “Federal Limits Apply” Driver Licenses and IDs to purchase firearms.

This consumer alert advises: Firearm Dealers may require additional documentation to prove lawful residency in the United State in the event that a “federal limits apply” identification card or drivers license is being utilized for the acquisition of a firearm. This is due to recent law revisions and the advice of the California Department of Justice to Firearms Dealers to consider requiring the additional documentation. Be sure to check with your firearms dealer ahead of time to avoid any unforeseen problems this holiday season. A firearms dealer may request one of the following documents to establish lawful residency:

  • Valid, unexpired U.S. passport or passport card
  • Certified copy of U.S. birth certificate
  • U.S. Certificate or Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen
  • Valid, unexpired foreign passport with valid U.S. immigrant visa and approved Record of Arrival/Departure (I-94) form
  • Certified copy of birth certificate from a U.S. Territory
  • Certificate of Naturalization or U.S. Citizenship
  • Valid, unexpired Permanent Resident Card

Please continue to check the California Stand and Fight web page for updates on issues impacting your Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage in California.

BIG NEWS: H.R. 7115: NATIONWIDE PROPOSED BAN IN THE WORKS

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Don’t sit and watch, people, and don’t assume that our interests are not our own responsibility! Read about this one coming around HERE

assault rifle ban

SOURCE: Various reports compiled by Glen Zediker, BLOG Editor

On November 2nd of last week I-1639 passed in Washington State. Next may be the passage of H.R. 7115 in the U.S. House, the “3D Firearms Prohibition Act.”

What that is, at its heart:

To prohibit the sale, acquisition, distribution in commerce, or import into the United States of certain firearm receiver castings or blanks, assault weapon parts kits, and machinegun parts kits and the marketing or advertising of such castings or blanks and kits on any medium of electronic communications, to require homemade firearms to have serial numbers, and for other purposes.

Notable is Section 3:

SEC. 3. Prohibition of advertising do-it-yourself assault weapons.

(a) It shall be unlawful to market or advertise, on any medium of electronic communications, including over the Internet, for the sale of any of the following:

(1) A firearm receiver casting or firearm receiver blank or unfinished handgun frame that…

(A) …at the point of sale does not meet the definition of a firearm in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code; and

(B) after purchase by a consumer, can be completed by the consumer to the point at which such casting or blank functions as a firearm frame or receiver for a semiautomatic assault weapon or machinegun or the frame of a handgun.

(2) An assault weapon parts kit.

(3) A machinegun parts kit.

H.R. 7115 was sponsored by New Jersey Democrat Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., for “himself, Mr. Sires, Ms. Norton, Mr. Cárdenas, Mr. Khanna, Mr. Pascrell, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Hastings, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Soto, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, and Mr. Rush.” It has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary.

Keep in mind that the Dems took back the House this election.

And this isn’t just going to affect folks who build guns. In Washington State an huge number of guns are soon to be reclassed as “assault weapons” thanks to the wording of the 1639. H.R. So 7115 will concern any and all gun owners because if it passes it’s nationwide. No more AR builds, Polymer80 handgun builds, and adios to an amount of gun rights.

Call your representative. Support a firearms advocacy group. JOIN NRA!

The anti-gunners are winning, at least in “support” from more and more mainstream entities. Enough support and the win could be outright and absolute.

We — gun owners — are “big enough” to stop them. Just don’t sit back and think it’s all just handled for us by groups like NRA or Second Amendment Foundation. We have to work together, and we all have to participate.

The fight isn’t later, it’s here. NOW!

NRA Membership

SUPPORT NRA-ILA

A short aside: From my own recent experience, my The Competitive AR15: Builders Guide book was denied a listing on eBay.  (Take a look at it here at Midsouth and see if it’s screaming “international terrorism.”) After a total of 4 hours on the phone with them they told me it was a “military manual” and therefore prohibited by their policies (despite others having sold that book for years there) because it had “AR15” in the title and nice photo of a partially-constructed A2 on its cover. Consider that, if you would, next time you’re looking for an online sales source to give your money to. Spend it here!
— GZ

Former ATF Agent Pulls Mask Off Giffords’s Plans for Federal AR-15 Registration

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

In an odd turn, just before Halloween one prominent gun control group briefly got out of costume: read all about what was underneath it… SEE MORE

giffords

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

When former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and husband Mark Kelly launched Americans for Responsible Solutions (now named Giffords) in early 2013, gun owners were assured that the group sought moderate “common-sense solutions” to gun violence. The group admonished NRA for not working to “to find the balance between our rights” and gun regulation. Giffords and Kelly explained, “we don’t want to take away your guns any more than we want to give up the two guns we have locked in a safe at home.”

This, of course, was all a marketing ploy. From its inception, Giffords has pushed the same warmed-over gun control policies as their less messaging-savvy peers.

To help their anti-gun allies better deceive the public, in 2016 Giffords put out a gun control messaging manual titled, “A Guide to Understanding and Engaging Americans on the Need for Stronger Gun Laws.” In a section labelled, “The Do’s and Don’ts of Talking About Gun Violence,” the guide made clear to gun control supporters that “Talk about creating a national gun registry, or banning or confiscating guns” was a definite “Don’t.” The group went on to falsely contend none of those measures “are policy priorities or have widespread support among gun violence prevention organizations.”

Not only is a national gun registry a priority for gun control advocates generally, as former Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent and current Giffords Senior Policy Advisor David Chipman made clear to The Hill this week, it is an explicit policy priority for Giffords.

In response to a question about AR-15 rifles, Chipman responded, “What I support is treating them just like machineguns.”

Reiterating that America’s most popular rifle should be subject to the National Firearms Act (NFA), Chipman went on to state,

To me, if you want to have a weapon of war, the same gun that was issued to me as a member of [the] ATF SWAT team, it makes sense that you would have to pass a background check, the gun would have to be in your name, and there would be a picture and fingerprints on file. To me, I don’t mind doing it if I want to buy a gun.

Chipman and Giffords’s preferred policy is similar to that supported by gun confiscation advocate Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). In early 2013, Feinstein proposed legislation that would have subjected tens of millions of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms to NFA regulation and registration.

While a former federal bureaucrat might not mind navigating the convoluted federal bureaucracy in order to exercise a constitutional right, most should abhor the prior restraint of NFA regulations.

In order to acquire a machinegun, the transferee and transferor must submit a Form 4 Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm to the ATF. The form requires identifying information about the firearm and personal information about the applicant. The transferee must submit an identifying photograph along with two completed FBI Forms FD-258 fingerprint cards. This information is compiled in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, colloquially known as the NFA registry. The transferee must also pay a $200 tax.

The NFA procedure is also a prohibitive waiting period. The latest ATF data measured the wait time for completion of a Form 4 at seven months, or over 200 days. At certain points in 2016, waits stretched to about a year.

Chipman’s policy of treating AR-15s “just like machineguns” would also mean a ban on the civilian possession of newly-manufactured AR-15 rifles. In 1986, anti-gun members of Congress were successful in getting one piece of gun control into the vital Firearm Owners’ Protection Act. A late, and controversial, amendment from Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) placed a ban on the transfer and possession of machineguns manufactured after May 19, 1986. Treating AR-15s like machineguns would mean a permanent freeze on the total stock of AR-15s Americans could lawfully possess.

There are good reasons gun control advocates seek to obscure such radical goals.

An October Gallup poll showed that 57 percent of Americans oppose “a law which would make it illegal to manufacture, sell or possess semi-automatic guns, known as assault rifles.” For the last seven years, every time Gallup has asked this question opposition to a ban has outweighed support.

Moreover, there is no evidence that further restricting commonly-owned semi-automatics would reduce violent crime. A pair of Department of Justice-funded studies of the 1994 Clinton semi-automatic ban could not determine that the ban reduced violent crime. The later of the two studies, from 2004, stated, “the ban’s impact on gun violence is likely to be small at best, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” In explaining why, the researchers wrote, “estimates consistently show that AWs [commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms] are used in a small fraction of gun crimes.” More recent research from the RAND Corporation determined, “Evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on total homicides and firearm homicides is inconclusive.”

History also shows that otherwise law-abiding gun owners are unlikely to comply with gun registration requirements. In the year and a half following implementation of the N.Y. SAFE Act in early 2014, 23,847 people registered 44,485 guns. Estimates of the number of firearms in the state subject to registration were 1-1.2 million. Gun control advocates didn’t have any better luck that year in Connecticut. Despite estimates that Nutmeg State residents owned several hundred thousand firearms and 2.4 million magazines subject to new registration requirements, owners registered a mere 50,016 firearms and 38,290 magazines.

Anti-gun advocates are well aware that the American people, through their elected representatives, have repeatedly rejected the severe gun control measures they support. Faced with this reality, gun control advocates have continually dressed up their fanatical goals in all manner of disguise. Constantly masquerading as moderate, for gun control supporters every day is like Halloween. As for anyone who falls for their ruse, it’s all tricks and no treats.

Alabama McDonald’s Gunman Killed By Armed Dad, Who Is Injured In Shootout

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

A brave dad armed with a pistol stopped what could have been a mass shooting inside an Alabama McDonald’s. READ MORE

mcdonald's

SOURCE: FoxNews

Last Saturday  the unidentified father was leaving the establishment with his sons when a masked man walked into the Birmingham fast-food restaurant and started shooting, WBRC-TV reported. The father returned fire and, during the ensuing shootout, the gunman, the father and one of the man’s teenage sons were struck, according to the station.

The gunman, who was not identified, later died of his injuries. The other two injuries were not considered life-threatening.

Markus Washington, one of the McDonald’s employees, told WBRC-TV he was making two quarter-pounders when bullets started to fly. Washington said he ran into the freezer, where he heard about 15 shots fired. “I’m feeling grateful,” he told the station. “Wrapping my head around it all, I was just wishing someone would come wake me up from this nightmare.”

Washington feared the worst as the shootout unfolded outside the freezer door.

“All we hear is like different gunfire, so in my mind, I’m imagining everybody is dead. He’s looking for us,” he said. Washington added he was thankful the armed customer was there. “He’s my hero. Because I can only imagine how it would’ve went if he wasn’t armed. We might not be here having this interview,” Washington said.

The father is not expected to face charges, police said.

Authorities are now working to determine if the gunman intended to rob the restaurant, was targeting an employee or planned something more nefarious.

“Things like this are difficult for both families. The gentleman who unfortunately lost his life, the teenage boy who is in the hospital recovering from his injuries and the father who is also recovering from his injuries,” Birmingham police spokesman Sgt. Bryan Shelton said, according to WVTM-13. “It’s not easy being a father and watching your child get injured, get hurt like that. It’s a really heartwrenching experience.”

See the news VIDEO HERE.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Interestingly enough, here’s a short excerpt from a 2013 Business Insider story regarding McDonald’s policy on concealed carry. Following an announcement from Starbucks denouncing and disallowing legal concealed carry, both McDonald’s and Dunkin Donuts supported “adhering to local, state, and federal laws.”

McDonald’s spokeswoman Lisa McComb gave Business Insider this statement:
“We recognize that there is a lot of emotion and passion surrounding the issue of firearms and open carry weapons laws.

While we respect the differing views of all our customers, McDonald’s company-owned restaurants follow local, state and federal laws as it relates to open carry weapons in our restaurants.

For franchisee-owned restaurants, operational decisions regarding open carry weapon laws are made by the independent franchisee.

That said, as with all aspects of operating a McDonald’s restaurant, we expect our franchisees and their crew to follow local, state and federal laws.”

In contrast, Starbucks issued a statement that said:
Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners. For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas — even in states where “open carry” is permitted — unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

Where will you buy your coffee?