Category Archives: Law

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

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

ammo background checks

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The experiment was not a success.

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

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

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

 

Slow and Steady Gun Control?

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

Image result for trump guns

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

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

Image result for nudge

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

Image result for trump guns

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

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

Image result for beto o'rourke guns

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

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

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

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

The 13 Republicans Needed To Pass Gun-Control Legislation

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

If President Trump endorses gun-control legislation, it will take 13 Senate Republican votes to pass the measure, assuming the entire 47-member caucus of Democrats and Independents backs it. READ MORE

Ted Cruz
Ted Cruz

SOURCE: The Hill, by Alexander Bolton

Conservatives such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) say any proposal that goes as far as the 2013 amendment sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) will face a backlash from the right, meaning 60 votes will be necessary to break a filibuster.

The Manchin-Toomey proposal, which is basis of current Senate negotiations, would expand back to include all sales over the Internet and at gun shows but exempt sales between family, friends and coworkers.

Here are the 13 Republicans crucial to passing gun-control legislation:

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)
Toomey is the lead Republican sponsor of Manchin-Toomey, which was first offered after the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

His amendment was negotiated in 2013 in an attempt to win support from the National Rifle Association, which ended up opposing it.

Toomey was one of four Republicans to vote for the measure, along with Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) and Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Mark Kirk (Ill.). McCain and Kirk are no longer in the Senate.

Toomey has spoken to Trump several times since the mass shootings in Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, Texas, last month gave new urgency to the issue of gun violence.

“It’s time to act. This is the time to do what we can to help make our communities as safe as we can. There is a bipartisan opportunity to expand background checks to cover all commercial sales. And while there have been many ideas that been floated, this is one that I think has the most resonance, the most saliency and the best chance of becoming law,” Toomey told reporters in his office last week.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Graham is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which has primary jurisdiction over gun control, and is a close ally of Trump.

He voted against Manchin-Toomey in 2013 and 2015 and expressed some ambivalence earlier this past week when asked about expanding background checks.

Graham, however, also told reporters that Trump is interested in expanding background checks and will likely endorse whatever proposal the president puts forth.

He is weighing legislation sponsored by Toomey and Sen. Chris Coons (D-Conn.) to require that law enforcement officials are notified if someone who attempts to purchase a firearm fails a background check.

He also is working with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) on so-called “red flag” legislation that would provide grants to states to empower law enforcement to confiscate firearms from individuals judged to be dangerous to themselves or others.

Graham faces re-election next year and will be cautious about endorsing any proposal that significantly expands background checks, an idea likely to spark controversy in conservative South Carolina.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Collins in one of only two Republicans currently in the Senate who has backed Manchin-Toomey.

Even if Trump doesn’t back a gun-control measure, Collins might support it.

She faces re-election next year in a state won by Hillary Clinton in 2016 and has come under fire from Democrats for confirming Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah)
Romney told reporters last week that all commercial gun sales should be subject to background checks and expressed willingness to support legislation along the lines of Manchin-Toomey.

“It certainly should be applied to commercial sales and finding a more comprehensive way to make sure that people are in the system that ought to be in the system,” Romney told reporters Monday.

Romney told The Hill last Thursday that he is talking with Manchin and Toomey about possible changes to their legislation to make it easier for people in rural areas to comply with background-check requirements when they buy or sell firearms from individuals who are not licensed gun dealers.

“They’re still working on some of the very detailed elements of it and I have spoken with them in some depth. I’m not looking for changes, I’m looking to see where they land. One of the areas of concern of course is how to make sure any kind of background-check technology would contemplate people in rural areas that live a long way from a licensed dealer that might have access to a background check terminal,” Romney said.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
Multiple Republican senators say McConnell is involved in the talks to put together a gun-violence package and has signaled interest in passing legislation as long as it has Trump’s support.

“He would like to get something done,” said a Republican senator involved in the talks.

McConnell told WHAS radio in Kentucky last month: “What we can’t do is fail to pass something.”

“The urgency of this is not lost on any of us,” he said.

A GOP poll last month showed that women voters in key suburban districts rate working to prevent gun violence as their top issue and that 72 percent of suburban women say gun laws should be more strict. McConnell in an interview with reporters in April identified suburban voters as the key to keeping Republican control of the Senate in 2020.

McConnell last month asked three chairmen, Graham, and Senate Health Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Commerce Committee Chairman Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) to explore various legislative proposals to respond to recent mass shootings.

Publicly, McConnell has kept his cards close to the vest, declining to tell reporters what policies he would support before Trump weighs in with his own recommendations.

“I’m going to wait and assess the proposal that actually could become law and at that point I’ll be happy to explain my vote one way or the other,” McConnell told reporters Tuesday.

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.)
Gardner, like Collins, faces a difficult reelection race in a state that voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

He wasn’t in the Senate when the chamber first voted on Manchin-Toomey in 2013 but he voted against it in a lower-profile vote in December of 2015, which Democrats forced after a mass shooting in San Bernardino, California.

Gardner this past week declined to say whether he would consider voting for Manchin-Toomey and expressed interest in knowing what changes might be made to the legislation.

“Are they talking about changing it? I haven’t looked at the recent changes,” he said.

Gun-control has had a mixed record in Colorado. Two Democratic state senators were removed from their jobs in recall elections in 2013 after the Democratic-controlled statehouse passed several gun control measures.

Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.)
McSally is another top Democratic target up for re-election in 2020.

Her expected Democratic opponent is Mark Kelly, the former astronaut and prominent gun-control advocate whose wife, former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) was seriously injured in a mass shooting in 2011.

Kelly, the co-founder along with Giffords of Americans for Responsible Solutions, has been at the forefront of the national debate over gun violence and is expected to make it a major issue in next year’s campaign.

McSally could insulate herself from political attacks if she supports legislation to expand background checks, which has garnered strong support in public polls, especially among suburban women.

McSally this past week declined to comment on whether she would support a variation of Manchin-Toomey or any other gun-control legislation.

“Sorry, I got to go vote,” she said as she raced past reporters to the Senate floor last week.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.)
Alexander is a moderate Republican and close ally of McConnell.

He is retiring at the end of next year and would be free to vote for legislation to expand background checks or address gun violence in other ways without fear of reprisal from the National Rifle Association.

McConnell has tasked Alexander, the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, with exploring strategies under his jurisdiction to combat gun violence.

GOP senators say Alexander will focus on legislation to address mental health issues and their contribution to gun violence. Any chance of passing such a bill will rely on attaching it to some expansion of background checks that can win Democratic support.

“Our nation cannot ignore these mass shootings,” Alexander declared in a press release last month. “I am ready to do more, especially on background checks, to identify those who shouldn’t have guns.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)
Tillis faces a competitive election next year in which suburban voters will be crucial to victory.

Tillis hasn’t ruled out voting for a variation of Manchin-Toomey but, like McConnell, says he will wait for a recommendation from Trump before announcing his position.

Tillis says whatever legislation comes to the floor must have “proper due process for law-abiding citizens.

“Hopefully we can find a way to work to the middle and not necessarily pursue a path that just gets us into a political debate with no outcome,” he recently told reporters.

“I’ve spoken to Sen. Toomey,” he added. “I’m open to anything, again, that we can get bipartisan consensus on and also make sure we’re not overreaching and really beginning to threaten the rights of law-abiding citizens, of which the majority of people who own guns are,” he said.

Tillis said Trump’s support for gun-violence legislation, however, is “critical.”

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas)
McConnell has tapped Cornyn along with the chairmen of the Judiciary, Health and Commerce Committees to explore proposals to include in a gun-violence package.

Cornyn was the lead sponsor of the last significant gun-control measure to be enacted into law, the Fix NICS Act of 2017. That bill implemented penalties for federal agencies failing to report relevant information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Trump signed the bill into law last year.

Two recent mass shootings took place in Cornyn’s home state, in El Paso and Odessa, giving him a special stake in the Senate debate.

Cornyn is also up for re-election next year in a state that is trending more Democratic and where suburban voters, who tend to favor stricter gun control, will be crucial to victory.

A University of Texas/Texas Tribune poll last year showed that 54 percent of Texas voters strongly support mental and criminal background checks for all gun sales.

Asked about Manchin-Toomey, Cornyn said: “I’m not adverse to that — to considering, to voting on it but there are a lot of other things I think would be in the mix.”

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio)
Portman represents Dayton, Ohio, where ten people were killed by a gunman on Aug. 4 and has a long track record of working on bipartisan deals.

Portman voted against Manchin-Toomey in 2013 and is keeping abreast of discussions on how to modify that proposal to pick up more GOP support.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
Rubio’s home state was the site of one of the nation’s most high-profile mass shootings last year, when a gunman killed 17 people and injured 17 others at Marjory Stoneman High School in Parkland, Florida.

Rubio and fellow Florida senator Rick Scott (R) have come under pressure from the parents of students killed in Parkland to support gun-control legislation.

Rubio hasn’t ruled out voting for a version of Manchin-Toomey but he says legislation to empower police to confiscate firearms from individuals deemed to be dangerous would be a more effective way to prevent future tragedies.

“I just think it would be more effective. If we knew who the people were that were a threat and were able to get to them before they took action, that would be far more effective in preventing the tragedies that have brought us to this point. And I also think it’s a bill that can pass,” he said.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Murkowksi along with Collins is a prominent moderate who has shown she’s not afraid to buck leadership on big votes, such as her vote against the 2017 effort to repeal ObamaCare.

She also demonstrated her independence last year by opposing the nomination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

Murkowski, however, is keeping her distance from the Senate negotiations on expanded background checks and waiting for the dust to settle.

“I know there have been talks going on, that’s as much as I know,” she told The Hill.

Murkowski also declined last week to comment about whether she would support a revamped version of Manchin-Toomey.

She voted against it in 2013.

Trump Will NOT Support Universal Background Check Bill

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

trump

SOURCE: Brietbart, AWR Hawkins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wal-Mart Expands Their Anti-Gun Agenda

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

wal-mart ammo

by Midsouth Shooters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colorado Student Banned From School For Going Shooting With His Mom

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Dang. When I was a kid in Colorado I used to go shooting with the School Superintendent and his kids… This is insane! READ ABOUT IT

loveland high school

SOURCE: RallyForYourRights.com by Lesley Hollywood

Justine Myers is your pretty average northern Colorado mom. She loves her kids, supports the troops, praises our first responders, and owns firearms. On Wednesday, Justine picked up her 16 year old son Nate early from school for some mother-son bonding time — she took him shooting, a common northern Colorado hobby.

After a fun afternoon, they return home and get settled in — and the police show up. Nate had posted on his Snapchat that he was going shooting with his mom along with a video (for those who need a little help translating the slang kids use these days “Finna be lit” basically means “Going to be a good time”)… See that HERE

And there’s a VIDEO of him shooting with his mother, who can be heard instructing him.

A report had come in to the police department about the video and they were told Nate was a threat. After showing the videos to the police officers and explaining that they’d simply gone on a mother-son outing to train with their legally owned firearms, the police stated that they had done nothing illegal and were well within their rights. They also determined Nate was not a threat to himself or anyone else, and went on their way.

But it wasn’t over.

The next Justine woke up to a voicemail from Thompson Valley School District where Nate is a junior at Loveland High School in Loveland, Colorado. The voicemail informed Justine that a report had come in claiming Nate was a threat to the school and he was not allowed to return until further notice. The report presumably came through “Safe 2 Tell,” which is essentially an anonymous “red flag” reporting outlet. There are reports that a schoolwide email was also sent to parents about the “threat.” Justine immediately contacted the school assuming she could easily clear things up, especially since the police had already assessed the situation and realized no one had done anything wrong or made any threats. She was wrong. The school not only refused to provide her with more information about the “threat,” but they refused to provide Nate with schoolwork so he didn’t get behind. A “threat assessment hearing” has been scheduled for Thursday morning at 10am at the school admin building where Justine will be allowed to defend her son against SEVEN school officials who will be in attendance to, as she was told, “make their case.” Make their case of what? That Nate’s outing with his mother to train using firearms with her somehow makes him a danger to the school?

I spoke with Justine, as well as two different attorneys who specialize in Second Amendment issues. The bottom line is the school is legally within their rights at this time. According to the attorneys, the school has a protocol that must be followed when a report of a threat comes in through Safe 2 Tell or other means, even if the report is completely false — and there is nothing parents or students can legally do about it, even with a lawyer. If the student is charged or further action is taken, that changes. This is why students have dubbed Safe 2 Tell as “Safe 2 Swat,” referencing the act of “swatting,“ a criminal harassment tactic of deceiving an emergency service into sending a police and emergency service response team to another person’s address. The person who will face no repercussions? The false accuser. As for Nate, he has aspirations to join the military and is now worried this incident will go on his permanent school record with far-reaching implications.

If this happens to you or your child, what should you do?

1.) Don’t talk to the police.
2.) Be prepared for a visit from CPS.
3.) Consider moving your firearms to safe place until it is cleared up.
4.) Contact us for lawyer referrals and moral support. HERE

We’ve had some people accuse us of this story being fabricated. We don’t fabricate stories. The mother is a member of our organization [Rocky Mountain Gun Owners] and we reached out to help her. We have both email and voicemails from the school but chose to not publish them out of fear of readers doxxing the school employees (something we’d rather not be held legally liable for). The story is breaking. Click HERE for another source.

Additionally, Complete Colorado, a news and commentary source in the state, sent Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams the Snapchat with no context to what was happening and asked him how he would interpret the post, he said it appeared to him someone got a new gun and was excited to go shoot it.

When told of the outcome, Reams could not believe one person’s fears were causing such a shakeup for another. He said this is the perfect example of the damage a Red Flag Law can do.

“People base their apprehension on their own paradigm and their own fear of guns and gun culture,” Reams said. “One kid is totally excited to go out and train on how to use a gun responsibly, while another kid is totally freaked out about seeing a gun.”

TAGS

Marching Toward Gun Confiscation: Prohibition Advocates Released Unhinged Gun Control Plan

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Boasting the Orwellian title of “A Peace Plan for a Safer America,” the March for Our Lives agenda is actually a disarmament plan against law-abiding gun owners. READ MORE

antigun

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Last week, March for Our Lives — the gun control group that arose in the wake of the criminal mass attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. — released a lengthy plan outlining its vision for firearm regulation in America. Reduced to its essence, the plan is to discourage gun ownership through numerous layers of red tape, fees, and government mandates.

Perhaps to their credit, March for Our Lives are more forthcoming in their proposals than disingenuous anti-gun groups who falsely profess commitment to the Second Amendment. No one can come away from reading the entire March for Our lives ”plan” with anything but the impression that the group wants to end gun ownership as America currently knows it. Even the anti-gun mass media has had to admit it is “sweeping,” “ambitious,” and “far-reaching.”

The centerpiece of the plan is the ever-trendy concept of a massive ban on semi-automatic firearms, coupled with a program to force formerly law-abiding owners of those guns to surrender them to the government or face punishment.

The plan doesn’t get into the specifics of which guns would be banned, how much compensation would be offered for their surrender, or what would happen to those who did not comply with this “full mandatory” scheme, but the goal would be “a reduction of our domestic firearm stock by 30%.”

Needless to say, however, any plan that by its own terms aims to have the U.S. government collect and destroy nearly 1 in every 3 guns in America must contemplate harsh treatment for anyone who doesn’t comply. Americans are not known for just casually surrendering their lawfully-acquired property and essential freedoms.

Even those who weren’t forcibly required to surrender their guns would still be subject under the plan to programs to “encourage” the “voluntary” civilian relinquishment of “handguns and other firearms.”

The plan also targets those still stubborn enough to want to legally acquire or keep a gun or ammunition. That would require a “multi-step approval process, overseen by a law enforcement agency, that requires background checks, in-person interviews, personal references, rigorous gun safety training, and a waiting period of 10 days for each gun purchase.”

Some version of this process, moreover, would have to be repeated each year that the person wanted to keep the gun.

And, of course, licensees would have to pay substantial “annual licensing fees” to atone for the high cost of “gun violence” they themselves are not committing.

Besides the licensing process, which would apparently allow licensing officials some discretion to deny even otherwise qualified applicants, mandatory disqualifiers for gun ownership would also be greatly expanded.

Young adults (ironically, the same demographic being used to market the “Peace Plan”) would be automatically prohibited. Anyone who was considered to have a “propensity for violence” would also be ineligible, a category that could be established by court records, misdemeanor convictions, and apparently even intemperate speech that did not rise to the level of a prosecutable offense.

Those who passed this rigorous licensing process, however, would still not be out of the woods. The plan would provide ongoing mechanisms of disarmament, either by license revocation or through a “federal policy” of “extreme risk protection orders” filed by family members or others who objected to the person having a firearm.

As if this weren’t enough, the plan would create a new National Director of Gun Violence Prevention, answerable only to the U.S. President, to marshal the vast resources of the federal government in support of the plan’s gun control agenda. Among other things, this official would be responsible for “educating” the pubic to reject the idea that “guns are safe products” and ensuring Americans understand that “the presence of a firearm in your home dramatically increases your chance of death.”

Characterizing “officer-involved shootings” as a “leading cause of death for young American men,” the plan even takes aim at police use of firearms and deadly force. The aforementioned director would also be tasked with promoting “stricter policies on the use of force” and directing the U.S. Department of Justice to conduct civil rights investigations of local police departments to exact “consent decrees” that subject the departments to federal oversight.

Ironically, at the same time the plan calls for additional restrictions on law-abiding gun owners and the police, it also insists on more lenient treatment of convicted criminals through criminal justice, pretrial, and sentencing reforms. The goal, in contrast to the increased surveillance and management of gun owners and police officers, would be to “lower the footprint of the criminal justice system” in everybody else’s lives.

And it just goes on an on. Most of the worst (and often discredited) thinking in gun control over the last 40 years is included in some form or fashion. For example, the plan calls for:

Rationing the purchase of firearms;
Banning “high capacity” magazines;
Banning online advertising of guns;
Banning online sales of ammunition and firearm parts;
Holding gun manufacturers and dealers civilly liable for crimes committed with firearms;
Creating a searchable national registry of firearms and firearm owners;
Creating national “safe storage” requirements; and
Granting the Consumer Products Safety Commission authority to regulate firearms.

How would any of this be consistent with the Second Amendment?

The plan has thought of that, too. The very concept of an individual right to keep and bear arms, as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, would undergo a “serious rethinking.”

The U.S. Department of Justice, for example, would be required to reexamine its own conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right and work toward repudiating the foundations of the Heller decision.

A “different interpretation of the Second Amendment” would also become a litmus test for the “next generation of federal judges.” The president would choose judicial prospects in concert with March for Our Lives to “develop a slate of gun violence prevention champions for federal judicial nominations …”

Even the U.S. Supreme Court itself would face “reform” under the plan, the better to ensure that “structural limitations” did not stand in the way of the court eventually reversing the “excoriated” and “controversial” Heller decision.

But the plan doesn’t stop there. It even envisions a federally-funded “Safety Corps,” modeled on the Peace Corps, to pay legions of young activists to promote the principles and objectives of the “Peace Plan.”

The “Peace Plan” concludes by calling “on every Presidential candidate for the 2020 election” to endorse it.

So far, none of the candidates seem to have taken the bait.

But if any of them do, March for our Lives will have done the entire American electorate a favor by showing just how far some politicians are willing to go to eradicate America’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

 

Journalist Attempts To Buy Guns At Walmart, Ends Up Collapsing The Left’s Anti-Gun Narrative Instead

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Hayley Peterson wrote that she set out to buy a gun from Walmart to see how easy it would be and found the process to be far more complicated than many have let on… READ MORE

wal mart

SOURCE: NRA-ILA, others

After the devastating shooting that took place in an El Paso, Texas, Walmart that left 22 people dead and 24 injured, the left began to do its usual pattern of never letting a crisis go to waste. Instead of taking a moment to mourn the fallen, they immediately launched into the process of making it an agenda item.

This includes a lot of virtue signaling aimed at Walmart. Leftists from lawmakers and activists, to random twitter users, began demanding Walmart cease selling firearms. All of them presented the idea that it’s incredibly easy to purchase a firearm from Walmart. More so, even, than cold medicine as David Hogg proposed.

@davidhogg111
It’s harder to get cold pills than an AR-15.
Something needs to change.

@CoryBooker
Thank you Walmart employees for demanding action. Walmart should use its power to stop selling guns in its stores until politicians and gun manufacturers get their act together and raise the standard for gun ownership in this country.

@BernieSanders
Walmart should respect the voices of its workers who are calling on the company to stop selling guns. I agree. This is exactly why I believe workers deserve representation on their board, so that their views are heeded.

But is it that easy to get a gun from Walmart? Enter Hayley Peterson of Business Insider.

Peterson wrote that she set out to buy a gun from Walmart to see how easy it would be and found the process to be far more complicated than many have let on:

“I went to Walmart with the intention of buying a gun last week as part of an investigation into the placement, selection, marketing, and security of firearms in Walmart’s stores, and to learn more about the retailer’s processes governing gun sales.”

“My journey to bring a gun home from Walmart turned out to be far more complicated than I expected.”

First, she went to Walmart’s website and found out that over 4,000 Walmart locations sell guns, but upon attempting to find out which one sells firearms in-store, she was coming up with vague answers. Furthermore, the only guns being displayed on Walmart’s website were non-lethal airsoft guns.

She then attempted to reach out to Walmart employees directly, but still had no luck:

“The only guns advertised on Walmart’s website are air guns, which are nonlethal. After about 30 minutes, I gave up on searching the internet and turned to the phone.”

“I figured that employees at any one of Walmart’s stores near me would know which locations sold guns.”

“I was wrong.”

“Over an hour and a half, I placed more than a dozen calls to multiple stores, waited on hold for a combined 40 minutes, and got through to a human only three times. Three Walmart employees told me they didn’t know which stores sold guns in the area.”

Calling customer service gave her no luck as well, as the representative told her they weren’t allowed to discuss item availability of that type for reasons he wouldn’t elaborate on. Finally, she managed to find a store that claimed it did sell them:

“Someone answered the phone at a Walmart Supercenter in Chesterfield, Virginia.”

“She transferred me to the sporting-goods department, where a woman on the line confirmed that I could buy a gun there.”

“The store was 30 minutes away. I got in my car and plugged the address for the Chesterfield Walmart into my phone.”

Peterson says she walked into the store, past the toy and bike aisles and located the gun counter right behind them. Even then, she encountered a sparse inventory with a lack of selection:

“A selection of about 20 rifles and shotguns was displayed in a locked glass case behind the sporting-goods counter. The guns ranged in price from $159 to $474.”

“The counter in front of the guns displayed pocket knives, binoculars, and digital night-vision monoculars inside a locked case.”

“The selection of guns was limited compared with nearby gun stores, which offered dozens of different kinds of firearms, including handguns.”

Peterson noted no advertisements for guns in the store. She was warned by signage that she was on camera in this particular area of the store and that upon request to purchase a gun, the manager was called.

The manager told Peterson that she would have to come back in a couple of days to purchase the firearm, as no licensed firearm seller was scheduled to work that day. She was told later that Walmart employees have to be legally qualified to sell firearms, passing background checks and going through training for it specifically.

She was able to look at the gun, and noted the very careful way in which the guns were locked up and secured, including zip ties that needed to be cut and replaced after every removal. Also, once purchased, the employee has to walk the gun to your car with you.

Upon returning a couple of days later, a woman was able to help sell the gun to Peterson. She walked Peterson through the process, had her pay $2 for her background check fee, and began filling out the paperwork. Peterson was stopped almost immediately, however, as her address didn’t match up the one displayed on her driver’s license:

“That was a problem, she said.”

“To pass the background check, I would need to bring in a government-issued document with my correct address, such as a bill from a state-owned utility or a car registration. (I have never bought a gun, so I wasn’t aware of this.)”

She apologized, told me the rules were strict around background checks, and asked me to come back another time to finish the purchase.

At that point, Peterson said she gave up trying to buy a gun from Walmart, and concluded that purchasing a gun from that store is incredibly difficult.

I doubt that many of the politicians and activists currently virtue signaling over Walmart have ever tried to purchase one from them. What’s more, I’m not sure how stopping the sale of firearms from Walmart would have helped anyone in El Paso, or prevented El Paso from happening. They don’t even sell handguns.

It seems to me that the “do something” crowd has picked a target in ignorance.

 

Another Florida Alert!

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

State appeals “Get Out of Jail Free” ruling by Leon County Judge. READ MORE

florida state

SOURCE: NRA-ILA, Marion P. Hammer (USF Executive Director, NRA Past President)

On Monday, July 29th we reported that a Leon County Circuit Court judge had struck down the penalty provisions that punish local government officials for knowingly and willfully violating state law and had essentially given them a “get-out-of-jail-free card.”

On July 30th Attorney General Ashley Moody filed a notice of appeal the ruling to the 1st District Court of Appeals. AG Moody wasted no time in making it clear that she will defend the right of the state to govern and punish (when necessary) its creations — local governments for misconduct and/or malfeasance.

Specifically, in a lawsuit brought by several anti-gun South Florida cities and counties, the court struck down the $5,000 fine and the risk of removal from office for individual public officials, local governments, and government agencies who knowingly and willfully violate the state preemption law by adopting local gun control ordinances.

Despite pleas from a group of anti-gun local officials urging The Attorney General and Governor Ron DeSantis not to appeal, the state quickly moved forward with a notice of appeal. The state cannot sit by and allow rogue local officials thumb their noses at the law.

Interestingly, Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried the Democrats highest ranking official couldn’t wait to attack the Attorney General’s decision to protect the rights of the state to punish those who violate the law.

Be aware: without penalty provisions, the only recourse against willful violations of law which infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens is for citizens or organizations to file expensive lawsuits against public officials to enforce the law. Then, law-breaking officials use tax dollars — YOUR MONEY — to defend themselves for violating the law. Local governments use the “bottomless pit” of tax dollars while citizens must spend their own money to protecting their rights.

The following article provides more information and is reprinted with permission.

STATE APPEALS RULING ON LOCAL GUN REGULATIONS

July 31, 2019

Jim Turner

Florida will appeal a circuit judge’s ruling that struck down a state law threatening tough penalties for local officials and governments that approve gun regulations.

Attorney General Ashley Moody filed a notice late Tuesday that the state will appeal the ruling by Leon County Circuit Judge Charles Dodson, who found last week that the 2011 law threatening the penalties was unconstitutional.

Asked for a comment Wednesday, Moody’s office released a copy of the notice of appeal, which puts a hold on Dodson’s ruling. Meanwhile, Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, the only statewide elected Democrat, blasted the decision to appeal.

Fried called the threatened punishments for passing gun regulations “some of the most extreme anywhere in the nation.”

“Our state shouldn’t threaten local elected mayors and council members with fines, lawsuits, and removal from office,” Fried said in a prepared statement. “We should restore local democracy and allow communities to consider common-sense local measures that reflect their values.”

Fried, whose Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services handles concealed-weapons licensing in the state, added that the appeal “is not only a waste of taxpayer money and time, but the wrong direction for our state.”

The lawsuit was filed in April 2018, after the mass shooting at Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that killed 17 people and injured 17 others. The school shooting led to widespread calls for gun-control measures, including calls for cities and counties to act.

Florida since 1987 has had what is known as a “preemption” law that prevents local governments from passing gun regulations that are stricter than state firearms laws. In 2011, lawmakers passed another measure that included a series of steps designed to prevent local governments and officials from violating the 1987 law, including imposing penalties of up to $5,000 against officials and potential removal from office.

The law also allowed individuals and groups that successfully challenged local governments over gun regulations to receive damages up to $100,000 and attorney fees.

During arguments last month before Dodson, Daniel Bell, an attorney for the state, said the law prevented a “potential patchwork regulatory scheme” of gun restrictions across Florida.

In his ruling issued late Friday, Dodson found that the 2011 law was unconstitutional, but he did not strike down the underlying 1987 law.

Moody’s move to appeal Dodson’s ruling to the Tallahassee-based 1st District Court of Appeal was not a surprise. But a group of local officials in recent days had urged Moody and Gov. Ron DeSantis not to appeal.

The law was challenged by more than 30 local governments, mostly South Florida cities, but also including Orlando, Gainesville and Tallahassee, and Miami-Dade, Broward and Leon counties.

Jamie Cole, the lead attorney for the local governments, said Wednesday he expects Dodson’s ruling to be upheld on appeal. “Judge Dodson’s decision was well-reasoned, well-written and supported by decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, Florida Supreme Court and Florida’s district courts of appeal,” Cole said in a statement.

 

Florida Alert!

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Proposed “Assault Weapons” Ban Amendment Bans ALL SEMIAUTOMATIC RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS. READ MORE

florida legislature

SOURCE: NRA-ILA, Marion P. Hammer (USF Executive Director, NRA Past President)

The so-called “assault weapons” ban that is proposed for a constitutional amendment to be on the 2020 Election Ballot bans the possession of:

“any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun CAPABLE of holding more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition at once, either in a fixed or detachable magazine or other ammunition feeding device.”

The fact is, any rifle or shotgun that is “capable” of accepting or using, a detachable magazine that holds 10 rounds or less is also “capable” of accepting a magazine or magazine extension of any size. Magazines with a capacity of 3 all the way up to 100 rounds are in common use throughout the United States.

Therefore, ALL semiautomatic rifles and shotguns “capable” of using a detachable magazine or fixed magazine would be banned. UNLESS YOU REGISTER THEM WITH THE GOVERNMENT within a year — so the government knows who has guns and how many. Otherwise you can be arrested, charged and prosecuted for felony possession of so-called “assault weapons” and your guns confiscated.

That means all Ruger 10-22 semiautomatic rifles, all Remington Model 1100 shotguns, all Benelli shotguns, all semiautomatic hunting rifles, all semiautomatic plinking and target rifles — you get the picture. If it is semiautomatic, kiss it goodbye.

Firearms that you legally purchased, legally owned, legally used, and legally possessed for years could suddenly be banned and you could end up in prison for merely continuing to possess your own property if you fail to register with the government. History shows that when the government knows who has guns and where they are, they can come and confiscate them.

Remember, once convicted of felony possession of a so-called “assault weapon,” then YOU LOSE ALL OF YOUR GUNS because felons can’t possess ANY GUNS, Period.

Further, manufacture and sale is also banned since there is no exemption whatever for possession due to manufacturing, distribution or sale.

Simply put, over 150 manufacturers may be forced to shut down and move out of Florida if they manufacture semiautomatic rifles or shotguns. Goodbye jobs, goodbye Pittman-Robertson money for youth gun safety programs, goodbye retail gun shops, HELLO, major damage to the job market and Florida’s economy.

A recent Gallup poll shows that over 40% of households ADMIT to owning at least one gun. That number is probably much higher since we don’t like telling pollsters what we own. In Florida with a population of over 22 million, that means 9-10 million Florida households could lose their home defense firearms if they are semiautomatic rifles or shotguns.

At an August 16th hearing, sponsor and supporters of the “Assault Weapons” Amendment said the following:

“We don’t think it bans Ruger 10-22 rifles, they’re just .22s.” –BUT IT DOES!!!!!

“My Benelli shotgun is beautiful and shouldn’t be banned. — BUT IT WILL BE!!!!!

“We don’t want to shut down your shooting range and gun shop.” — BUT IT WILL!!!!!

Welcome to reality. What they think or what they say they want doesn’t matter.

ONLY the words matter and the proposed amendment will ban Ruger 10-22s, Benelli Shotguns, Remington Model 1100 shotguns and all semiautomatic rifles and shotguns with detachable or fixed magazine.

What matters is what the language says and does. And past experience has shown us that the government will enforce it as badly as they possibly can.

BOTTOM LINE: The sponsors and supporters either don’t know what the heck they are doing or they are lying.

AND your Second Amendment rights are in danger. PERIOD.