Category Archives: NRA

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

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

texas flag

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

New Laws Will Take Effect on September 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Oregon: Initiative Filed to Restrict Self-Defense

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

gun lock

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

NRA-PVF Endorses Michael Watson for Mississippi Secretary of State

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Elections are coming soon! Here’s a pro Second Amendment candidate from the Magnolia State. READ MORE

mississippi

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) is pleased to announce its endorsement of Michael Watson for Mississippi secretary of state in the 2019 primary election.

“During his time as a state senator, Michael Watson voted consistently on behalf of law-abiding gun owners and has remained a steadfast supporter of the Second Amendment,” said Jason Ouimet, chairman, NRA-PVF. “If Watson is elected, Mississippians can rest assured their freedoms will be protected.”

Watson is an “A” rated candidate. He has supported a number of bills that protect the right of personal self-defense, a bill that protects shooting ranges and a measure to put the right to hunt and fish amendment on the ballot.

“Michael Watson is a strong advocate of the Second Amendment, and the NRA encourages all freedom-loving Mississippians to vote for Michael Watson on Aug. 6.”

NRA Statement On Virginia Special Session

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

nra members

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

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

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Be sure to follow the NRA on Facebook at NRA on Facebook and Twitter @NRA.

 

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

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

fact check

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is classic use of a strawman by Politifact.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

northam

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington: New Lead Regulations Would Target Shooting Ranges

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Stricter regulations could mean great expense for shooting ranges and retailers. We’ll keep up with this one, but here’s where it starts… READ MORE

lead on ranges

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

The Washington Department of Labor and Industries Division of Occupational Safety & Health (DOSH) has released an updated draft of the lead rules they originally released last year following stakeholder meetings. These proposed regulations will impose complicated and expensive burdens on shooting ranges and retailers, potentially making it difficult for some to continue operations. DOSH will be holding additional stakeholder meetings to discuss these proposed regulations. Shooting ranges are vital to the safe practice and exercise of our constitutionally protected Second Amendment right to self-defense, and maintaining access to shooting ranges is a top priority for NRA.

Existing federal and state law already provides extensive regulation of lead in the workplace. In addition to the federal requirements under the Occupation Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Washington also has regulations in place regarding workplace lead exposure and has enforced these regulations through inspections and citations. This draft regulation proposes new and much more demanding requirements that significantly exceed compliance under existing law without providing any clarification on their need. Furthermore, there have been no economic impact studies on the effect these regulations will have on small businesses.

Your NRA will continue to actively participate as a stakeholder in the development of these new rules in meetings with the Department of Labor and Industries. We will provide ongoing input on the impact the proposal will have on gun ranges, retailers, and our shooting community.

 

NRA’s Number Two Resigns, NRA Shuts Down NRA TV

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

No shock, Chris Cox has resigned his position at NRA. Here’s more in this developing story that’s now taken NRATV off the air too. READ MORE

Chris Cox
Chris Cox

SOURCE: Tactical Wire

Chris Cox, the former head of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) has resigned his position. Last week, NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre placed Cox on leave and accused the man many believed to be his evenutal successor of having aided in a failed “coup” attempt against LaPierre by former NRA President Oliver North. In the announcement of Cox’s departure to NRA employees, LaPierre thanked Cox “for his service to the NRA.” This latest development follows the announcement by LaPierre that the NRA was shutting down production of its online streaming network, NRATV. The Outdoor Wire has also acquired a communication between the NRA and its former agency Ackerman McQueen in which the NRA’s Andrew Arulanandam “demands immediate delivery of all materials by Section XLC of the Services Agreement, including all Confidential Information (as defined by the Services Agreement).” The letter also says that “if AMc damages or converts the NRA’s property, or if the NRA perceives an imminent risk of the same, the NRA will pursue legal recourse.” The acrimonious parting of the ways has been accompanied by a myriad of charge, counter-charges and lawsuits between the NRA and Ackerman McQueen.

 

NRA Suspends Second-in-Command, Implicating Him in Coup Attempt

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

There’s a lot going on right now within NRA. Rumors are rampant! This article has the a good collection of facts. READ MORE

Chris Cox
Chris Cox

SOURCE: NYTimes.com, by Danny Hakim

The palace intrigue at the National Rifle Association deepened last Thursday as the gun group suspended its second-in-command and top lobbyist, accusing him of complicity in the recent failed coup against its chief executive, Wayne LaPierre.

The accusation came in a lawsuit filed Wednesday night in New York State Supreme Court against Oliver North, the N.R.A.’s former president, who led the attempt to oust Mr. LaPierre shortly before the group’s annual convention in April. The complaint provides new details about the effort against Mr. LaPierre, but it is the involvement of the organization’s No. 2 official, Christopher W. Cox, that will reverberate.

In the suit, the N.R.A. said that text messages and emails demonstrated that “another errant N.R.A. fiduciary, Chris Cox — once thought by some to be a likely successor for Mr. LaPierre — participated” in what was described as a conspiracy.

The court filing includes text exchanges in which Mr. Cox and a board member appear to be discussing an effort to oust Mr. LaPierre, though the full context is unclear. The N.R.A. is conducting an internal review of the matter, and a spokesman, Andrew Arulanandam, said on Thursday that both Mr. Cox and a top aide, Scott Christman, had been placed on administrative leave.

Mr. Cox, in a statement, said: “The allegations against me are offensive and patently false. For over 24 years I have been a loyal and effective leader in this organization. My efforts have always been focused on serving the members of the National Rifle Association, and I will continue to focus all of my energy on carrying out our core mission of defending the Second Amendment.”

The suit — the latest in a series of legal actions stemming from the gun group’s internal turmoil — is likely to send new shock waves through the N.R.A. While Mr. North served as president for just one year, Mr. Cox has worked for the N.R.A. since 1995 and led its lobbying arm since 2002. He has been a leading presence at the organization’s gatherings, reliably serving up red meat for the N.R.A.’s base.

Among other things, he has been a fervent defender of the AR-15, the semiautomatic rifle used in many mass shootings, telling attendees at the group’s convention last year that “we have an AR culture that’s on display all over the exhibit halls this weekend.”

Together, Mr. Cox, 49, and Mr. LaPierre, 69, have been the public faces of the N.R.A., the twin architects of its strategy. But they have had an uneasy relationship, and their staffs are somewhat siloed from each other. Mr. Cox runs the N.R.A.’s lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, which has a separate media relations team from the N.R.A.’s, and his choice of consultants has also sometimes diverged from Mr. LaPierre’s.

As Mr. North’s coup attempt played out at the convention this spring, some people inside the N.R.A. said Mr. Cox largely kept quiet and appeared to be hedging his bets.

Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for the N.R.A.’s lobbying arm, said Mr. Cox and Mr. LaPierre had “worked closely together for a quarter of a century, and any notion that Chris participated in a coup is absurd. Chris Cox is known as a calming force who always acts in the best interests of our members by effectively defending the Second Amendment, so it’s not surprising that board members would reach out to him for advice during tumultuous times.”

But Carolyn D. Meadows, who succeeded Mr. North as N.R.A. president, said in a statement: “I fully support the actions undertaken today. The N.R.A. is moving forward on all fronts, especially with regard to serving our members and focusing on the crucial upcoming elections.”

The genesis of the dispute between the N.R.A. and Mr. North is a related legal battle between the N.R.A. and its most prominent contractor, the Oklahoma-based advertising firm Ackerman McQueen, which employed Mr. North. The N.R.A. has sued Ackerman, claiming it withheld documents and records from the gun group, and some officials have suggested the company may also have been overbilling. Ackerman, which has said it did nothing improper, filed a countersuit claiming that it was smeared by the N.R.A.

In yet another lawsuit, the N.R.A. has accused Ackerman of breaching confidentiality clauses in its contract and smearing Mr. LaPierre.

The new lawsuit seeks to block Mr. North’s attempt to have the N.R.A. pay his legal fees, which he has sought as he fields requests to cooperate with other litigation as well as a Senate inquiry.

“The N.R.A. believes that Col. North seeks payments from the Association to which he is not entitled,” the N.R.A.’s outside counsel, William A. Brewer III, said in a statement. (Mr. North is a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who first came to prominence during the Iran-Contra hearings.) “The N.R.A. alleges that Col. North breached his fiduciary obligations — in a coordinated attack against the N.R.A. and Wayne LaPierre that involved others motivated by their own economic self-interest,” Mr. Brewer added.

In addition to implicating Mr. Cox, the new lawsuit claims that another N.R.A. board member, the former Oklahoma congressman Dan Boren, participated in the effort to oust Mr. LaPierre, and it presents a piece of evidence intended to shed light on the overbilling question.

Mr. Boren is close to Ackerman and works for another Ackerman client, the Oklahoma-based Chickasaw Nation. In an exhibit filed in the latest complaint, Mr. Boren expressed concern to a Chickasaw official that Ackerman was billing the N.R.A. for “full salary to these employees that may have been working on our accounts,” adding, “I bet Ackerman is in trouble on this one.”

Another key issue in the N.R.A.’s battle with Ackerman is the role of Mr. North, who was employed by Ackerman while serving as the N.R.A.’s president; the N.R.A. has claimed that the arrangement was improper and that Ackerman wouldn’t show the N.R.A. a copy of Mr. North’s contract for months. Mr. North has said Mr. LaPierre helped negotiate the contract.

Mr. North is said to have sparked the coup by delivering a threatening message to a key aide to Mr. LaPierre shortly before the N.R.A. convention in April, warning that damaging revelations about the N.R.A.’s spending on Mr. LaPierre’s clothing and travel would be released if he did not step aside. He also said Mr. LaPierre would be well rewarded financially if he stepped down. Mr. LaPierre refused to step aside, and the embarrassing material was indeed released, though it is not clear by whom.

The latest suit calls this “a conspiracy by North to extort the N.R.A.”

Any move against Mr. Cox could lead to further litigation. He is one of three senior executives who are contractually entitled to receive their base pay for one to four years if they are dismissed without cause, or in some other instances, according to Massachusetts State records reviewed by The New York Times.

The N.R.A., however, seems to be losing patience with paying those it considers to have betrayed Mr. LaPierre.

“Simply put, the N.R.A. exists to fight for the Second Amendment,” the group said in its latest suit, “not pay other people’s bills.”

 

A Tale of Two Rallies

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

California Democratic Rep. Eric Swallwell takes his battle “to the NRA’s doorstep” to press his points about gun control. Here’s what happened. READ MORE

nra rally

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

The 2020 presidential contest is now underway in earnest. Last Tuesday, President Trump officially kicked off his reelection campaign to a packed house at the 20,000 seat Amway Center in Orlando, FL. Earlier that day, one of the two dozen or so contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination tried to have a rally of his own to draw attention to his signature issue of gun control. The difference between the two events speaks volumes about the role the Second Amendment plays in American politics.

At about 1:30 in the afternoon, Eric Swallwell, a little-known U.S. Congressman from California’s 15th District, held an event on the sidewalk across from NRA Headquarters in Fairfax, VA. Swallwell is polling at a pathetic 1% in his party’s primary race and just barely qualified to attend the first Democrat debate.

The location of the “event” (if that’s not too strong a word) was meant to be symbolic. Speaking to The Hill last week, the candidate boasted: “I’m taking the battle to the NRA’s doorstep with a new, broader package of commonsense reforms to end gun violence.” The Hill article noted that “gun control” is the “centerpiece” of this individual’s “long-shot Democratic presidential bid.” Indeed, at his campaign launch in April, he told his audience that “this issue [i.e., gun control] comes first.”

It can only be assumed, then, that this “confrontation” with the NRA was a key moment in his effort to gain some national attention and raise his profile in a crowded field.

Instead, the gathering was an embarrassingly lame example of either extremely poor planning or rank disinterest in anything the individual had to say. With sun breaking through the clouds, accompanied by typical Northern Virginia heat and humidity, the crowd topped out at 18 individuals during the height of the event. This does not include the individual himself or a small contingent of reporters, but it does include his own staff and others who actually accompanied him to the site.

Adding to the humorous nature of the scene was the backdrop of a giant black tour bus that looked as if it could have held many dozens of occupants. Like a reverse clown car, it disgorged a “crowd” completely disproportionate to its size.

There’s nothing funny, however, about what this pretender would do to your Second Amendment rights in the far-fetched event he actually wielded power from the Oval Office.

Swallwell’s plan — which he misleadingly calls “A National Framework to End Gun Violence” — is basically a compendium of the worst thinking on gun control from the last 40 years.

Needless to say, the centerpiece of the “Framework” is a massive gun ban, in this case on what he calls “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons.” This likely refers to magazine-fed semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, which not incidentally is America’s most popular centerfire rifle platform.

Unlike other recent proposals, his plan calls for forcing those who previously obtained the newly-banned guns lawfully to surrender them to the government for whatever compensation D.C. bureaucrats decided to offer. He calls this the option for the person “who chooses to follow the law.”

Any person “caught defying the law” by refusing to relinquish their lawfully-obtained and constitutionally-protected property, meanwhile, could expect to be criminally prosecuted under the plan.

Of course, the true threats to public peace and order do not “choose[] to follow the law,” and the types of firearms he proposes to ban are actually under-represented in violent crime in the U.S. And even considering the far more infrequent phenomena of mass shootings, semi-automatic rifles are under-represented in those crimes as well.

The rest of his proposed agenda is too lengthy to fully enumerate, but lowlights include:

a mandatory 48-hour waiting period to take possession of a purchased gun (including, apparently, for those who already own guns);
a ban on the private sale of firearms;

federal licensing and mandatory training to obtain a firearm;

a nationwide registry of every firearm, firearm owner, and firearm transaction in America;

rationing of the purchase of handguns and ammunition; and

a cap on the amount of ammunition that individuals may possess at any one time to 200 rounds per caliber or gauge.

The full list is considerably longer, but the obvious intent is to discourage gun ownership by making it as expensive, burdensome, bureaucratic, legally perilous, and socially unacceptable as possible. Indeed, if he accomplished every item he proposes, American citizens would be worse off in terms of access to firearms than residents of many Western European countries that have no pretense of a “right” to arms and instead treat gun ownership as a tightly-restricted privilege.

Yet even as this plan was being unveiled to an audience that could barely fill a spacious utility closet, another, significantly larger audience was massing well ahead of President Trump’s official campaign kick-off later that night. That event packed the 20,000 seats of the arena, with an overflow crowd cheering the President on from outside of the venue as well.

And it wasn’t just the numbers that told the tale. There was an enthusiasm and electricity to the crowd in Orlando that is simply unmatched in American politics today.

For Second Amendment supporters, the president has been a steadfast ally, refusing to bend to the will of anti-gun forces within the Democrat party, the legacy media, and increasingly in a business climate that appears to embrace virtue signaling even over company mission or shareholder value. His years in office have seen some of the harshest, most sustained attacks against the Second Amendment in our nation’s history, and he has held firm to his promise to be friend to the law-abiding gun owner. None of the many gun control bills introduced into Congress have succeeded during his watch.

Not only that, he has appointed two justices to the U.S. Supreme Court committed to the original understanding of the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment will again be before the court this year, and thanks to President Trump, it will be given the respectful consideration it deserves. That would not have happened if Hillary Clinton had succeeded in her bid for the White House.

President Trump mentioned the Second Amendment three times in Orlando, and the crowd responded each time with raucous cheering and applause.

Like his would-be opponent from California, the President has situated the Second Amendment squarely at the center of his campaign. President Trump, however, understands the fundamental place the right to keep and bear arms holds in American life. “We will protect our Second Amendment,” he promised once again.

Fortunately, President Trump will almost certainly not be facing the Congressman from California’s 15th District in the race for the White House. And while the president’s eventual opponent is likely to take a more “moderate” stance on firearms in the general election, there’s little doubt the gun control wish list unveiled last Tuesday was as much as anything a roadmap anti-gun forces hope will lead to the eventual destruction of the Second Amendment. Bit by bit, they are hoping to change the terms of the debate and move the window on what is considered possible in infringing your rights.

Two views of the Second Amendment emerged on Tuesday, and it was clear which one was more widely embraced.

But make no mistake, there is still much work to be done to ensure that view also prevails in 2020. The media’s knives were out before the president even finished his speech, spinning familiar tales about the doom that surely await his electoral ambitions.

So we must do all we can to protect our freedoms in the 2020 elections.