Category Archives: NRA

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

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

swalwell

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So which Swalwell story are we supposed to believe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But to think so would be overestimating Nina Burleigh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mushroom cloud

 

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

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

california

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

assault rifle ban

SOURCE: Various reports compiled by Glen Zediker, BLOG Editor

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

What that is, at its heart:

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

Notable is Section 3:

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

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

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

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

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

(2) An assault weapon parts kit.

(3) A machinegun parts kit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NRA Membership

SUPPORT NRA-ILA

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

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

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

giffords

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republican Mayor Survives Recall Effort After Twitter-Checking David Hogg

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Waterville, Maine Mayor Nick Isgro stands up to social media attack from David Hogg. READ WHAT HAPPENED HERE

hogg

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Fortunes seem to rise and fall on Twitter with alarming regularity. But the platform may not be an equal opportunity soapbox, with some opinions reportedly getting more exposure than others and some speakers seemingly operating with greater impunity. That’s why it was refreshing this week to see the people of Waterville, Maine, stand behind their Republican mayor, Nick Isgro, after an effort was launched to recall him from office. Mayor Isgro’s supposed offense? Calling gun control activist David Hogg to task in a tweet.

The story began last March when Fox News personality Laura Ingraham tweeted about Hogg’s rejection by several California universities, adding perhaps to lessen the sting that that it was “totally predictable given acceptance rates.”

Hogg responded by tweeting a list of the top advertisers on Ingraham’s show, encouraging his own hundreds of thousands of Twitter followers to contact them and threaten a boycott if the advertisers did not pull their support for the show.

Many of the advertisers reportedly did just that, and Ingraham later apologized to Hogg for her comments. Hogg, not accustomed to being the bigger man, did not accept the apology and continued his attempt to ruin Ingraham’s career.

Fox, however, stood by Ingraham, and she weathered the type of tempest in a teapot that has destroyed the careers of other, usually right-leaning, media personalities. “We cannot and will not allow voices to be censored by agenda-driven intimidation efforts,” a Fox executive stated.

Mayor Isgro took note of this by retweeting a message that stated, “Fox News president backs Laura Ingraham despite advertiser boycott over Parkland controversy.” He also added some editorializing of his own: “Eat it, Hogg.”

This sparked the predictable backlash from Democrats already opposed to Isgro’s administration, as well as from supporters of David Hogg, who apparently believe that the teenage gun control activist should be able to dish out critical or biting commentary but not have to take it. Needless to say, the effort was buoyed by their supporters in the left-leaning media, who characterized the mayor as “attacking” a young survivor of gun violence.

Democrat Karen Heck, a former mayor of Waterville, took things a step further by launching a recall effort against Isgro in April

To put Mayor Isgo’s comments in context, it’s important to understand that David Hogg is well known for calling out the targets of his activism in the most insulting terms possible, while wielding a very tenuous view of the law and facts underlying gun control and political activism. This has, of course, earned him accolades and fawning media coverage from people and entities predisposed to his point of view but somewhat constrained in their own rhetoric by the requirements of their professions and general (though continually declining) norms of adult behavior.

Hogg, needless to say, is entitled to exercise his First Amendment rights.

And we’re entitled to point out that he just got stuffed in yet another attempt by Democrat activists to torpedo the life and career of a person who dared to give one of their own a taste (albeit significantly watered-down) of his own medicine.

It should be noted that Mayor Isgro did not escape from the situation totally unscathed. He did apparently lose his banking job in the fray.

Nevertheless the people of Waterville were not swayed by what Mayor Isgro characterized as an effort that “well-connected and wealthy political elites” started “with their friends in the media and dark money funded outsiders who do not live in our city … .” Waterville sided with their democratically elected mayor, rather than the selectively self-righteous, Internet-fueled mob.

Whether this augurs a decline in David Hogg’s ability to influence outcomes in the non-virtual world remains to be seen. But it certainly gives him something to chew on in the meantime.

Poll: Most Americans Oppose Ban on “America’s Rifle”

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Despite media claims, a new Gallup poll shows Americans overwhelmingly support the AR15 ownership. READ ALL ABOUT IT

gallup ar15 poll

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Last week, Gallup released the results of a poll which included a finding that should surprise no one: Americans oppose a ban on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic firearms by robust a margin of 17%. Meanwhile, current support for such a ban is 7% lower than the historical trend dating back to 1996, when Gallup first began polling on the issue. Americans, in other words, appear not to have been swayed by the intense media editorializing, celebrity pontificating, and youthful activism of the past year aimed at prohibiting what are by all accounts the most popular types of rifles in the country.

Of course, even in America, you could probably find people who would claim to support a ban on apple pie. It’s not very nutritious, they might say. It’s regressive, others might insist. Americans, after all, have the right to their opinions, even the unpopular ones.

When it comes to guns, the minority opinion is strongest among people who identify as Democrats. Gallup’s latest poll shows 56% of Democrats would support a ban on semiautomatic rifles, 16% above the national average. That is more than twice the percentage of Republicans (25%) who responded the same way. But even among Democrats, support for a semiauto ban has fallen 7 points since this time last year, notwithstanding the fact that some pundits were predicting that 2018 would finally be the year when banning highly popular guns would somehow become a winning political issue.

So what has all the “game-changing” post-Parkland grandstanding accomplished in the last eight months?

When it comes to banning guns, apparently nothing.

And it’s not just us who think so.

No one individual has shoveled more bad money into the gun control cause than billionaire Michael Bloomberg. In fact his insistence on burning huge sums of money on the issue for minimal returns almost makes you wonder how he ever got so rich in the first place.

But even he seems to understand the reality of the current situation.

According to an article in the Washington Times, Everytown for Gun Safety — the umbrella group for Bloomberg’s gun control activism –has actually shifted its midterm election spending into “ads covering abortion, health care and the Republican tax bill — but nary a mention of assault rifles … . “

Commenting for the article, gun control advocate Adam Winkler mused, “Perhaps the gun issue has waned a bit in the absence of highly publicized mass shootings in the past few months.”

And that, of course, is the irony of the gun ban movement: it needs the very events it claims to want to prevent for anyone to pay attention to it.

Even then, however, that attention and intensity typically prove to be short-lived.

Hyping other issues, of course, does not actually signal a retreat by Everytown from its gun control agenda. Rather, it’s a recognition that gun controllers will have to buy votes and politicians by other means to force their prohibitionist views downward on the American people, rather than using those views to inspire people to support their candidates in the first place.

In other words, it’s pretty much the opposite of a true grassroots approach.

Take, for example, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who was embarrassed this week by the release of audio recordings catching her and her staffers admitting that they conceal or downplay her true positions on issues like gun control in order to mislead voters on the positions she will take once elected.

All this is exactly why NRA-ILA — a true grassroots organization — is dedicated to ensuring that voters know exactly what they’re getting when it comes to the Second Amendment views of political candidates.

You might even say we try to make it as easy as pie … apple pie, of course.

NRA Applauds Senate Confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Good news for gun owners! READ IT ALL

kavanaugh

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

The National Rifle Association is very pleased with the U.S. Senate’s confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve as an associate justice on the United States Supreme Court.

“On behalf of our nearly six million members, the NRA congratulates Brett Kavanaugh on his confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). “Kavanaugh is an eminently qualified jurist who will interpret the Constitution as the framers intended. He respects our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.”

In the 2016 elections, voters made clear that the Supreme Court was an issue of critical importance. President Donald Trump has once again delivered on his promise of appointing constitutionally sound justices to our nation’s highest court.

“The NRA would like to thank President Trump for fulfilling his campaign promise to nominate pro-Second Amendment justices to the Supreme Court. The selections of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh demonstrate President Trump’s unwavering support for our fundamental right to self-defense,” Cox continued.

The U.S. Senate confirmed Kavanaugh by a 50 to 48 vote. The NRA applauds all senators who voted in favor of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation and would especially like to thank Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) for their leadership in this effort.

Feinstein Distorted Facts About AR-15, NRA Says

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein claims that the AR-15 is not “in common use.” Really? READ MORE

feinstein ar15

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action called into question the California Democrat’s assertions about the weapon and said the rifle has gained popularity in recent years.

The group cited figures from the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The firearms industry trade group calculated that between 1996-2016 more than 16 million AR-15 and AK-pattern rifles have been available for sale in the U.S.

NRA went on to accuse Feinstein of distorting facts in what it described as the senator’s ongoing effort to limit Second Amendment gun rights: “Needless to say, there is nothing ‘reasonable’ or moderate about banning what is literally the most popular class of rifles in America.”

“I’m talking about your statement on ‘common use,’ she told Kavanaugh. “Assault weapons are not in common use.”

“Semi-automatic rifles are widely possessed in the United States,” Kavanaugh rebutted. “There are millions and millions. … That seemed to fit the [definition of] ‘common use’ and not being a dangerous and unusual weapon.”

Judge Kavanaugh: “Semi-automatic rifles are widely possessed in the United States. There are millions and millions. … That seemed to fit the [definition of] ‘common use.'”

Feinstein countered that the numbers of rifles in existence didn’t constitute “common use,” arguing that the term applies to how often the weapons are used.

“Common items are routinely said to be “in use” for a purpose whether or not that involves active manipulation of the item at any given time,” the NRA said.

Feinstein has been a fierce gun-control advocate since her days as on the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco. She was the first person to discover her colleague Harvey Milk on his office floor after he’d been fatally shot, according to the Los Angeles Times. A former supervisor, Dan White, also assassinated then-Mayor George Moscone on that day in November 1978.

Since then, Feinstein has advocated for tough gun reforms:

“I have been a woman on a mission to ban assault weapons,” the senator said, to applause, at a gathering of union members at the California Democratic Party convention this year. “This is not our America, and we need to change it,” she said.

That hasn’t stopped her from owning firearms. Two years before the assassinations, Feinstein was trained to use a .38 five-shot revolver and obtained a concealed-carry permit.

She attempted to reenact the Clinton-era assault weapons ban in the aftermath of several high-profile mass shootings, including the Oct. 1, 2017, shooting in Las Vegas that left 58 people dead and hundreds injured.

The NRA called it ban-revival effort a “125-page firearm prohibition fever dream [that] is perhaps the most far-reaching gun ban ever introduced in Congress.”

During the Kavanaugh hearing, Feinstein asserted that Kavanaugh’s reasoning for dissenting on the District of Columbia’s assault weapons ban was “far outside the mainstream of legal thought and it surpasses the views of [the late Justice Antonin] Scalia, who was obviously a pro-gun justice.

“If the Supreme Court were to adopt your reasoning,” she said to Kavanaugh, ” I fear the number of victims would continue to grow.”

Kavanaugh: “Semi-automatic rifles are widely possessed in the United States. There are millions and millions. … That seemed to fit the [definition of] ‘common use.'”

Here’s the full video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRmapqDakE&feature=youtu.be

 

Levi’s Teams with Billionaire Michael Bloomberg to Attack Gun Rights

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Abandoning their “Wild West” heritage, Levi’s now advocates radical gun control. READ MORE

levi's antigun

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Levi Strauss & Co. established its brand in the mid-19th century by selling durable clothing to working-class Americans. As Levi’s signature jeans gained popularity amongst a wider set in the middle of the last century, the pants came to symbolize American freedom. As Stanford Historian Niall Ferguson points out in his book, Civilization: The West and the Rest, during the Cold War, the American pants were so desirable behind the Iron Curtain that citizens would break any number of laws to obtain them. At one point the company even celebrated America’s armed heritage in a circa 1950 advertising brochure, “Levi’s Gallery of Western Guns & Gunfighters.” It’s with some irony then that Levi’s has abandoned this rugged image to team up with a billionaire oligarch in an effort to empower the government to trample upon the fundamental rights of the American people.

On September 4th, Levi’s CEO Chip Bergh announced that the San Francisco-based clothing manufacturer (which also owns Dockers) would openly advocate for gun control. As part of this campaign, the company will donate more than $1 million to radical anti-gun groups, including Michael Bloomberg front-group Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords, formerly Americans for Responsible Solutions and the Legal Community Against Violence. The company will also match employee donations to these groups and is encouraging its staff to devote their time to anti-gun activism.

Further, Bergh stated that the company has joined the Everytown Business Leaders for Gun Safety. The business wing of Bloomberg’s outfit is dedicated to leveraging member companies’ “market footprint… employee networks, [and] public communications platforms” to diminish Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

In a repulsive insult to the nation’s 100 million gun owners, Bergh likened Levi’s campaign to restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans to previous company efforts aimed at combatting pre-Civil Rights Era racial bigotry.

Among gun owners, Levi’s intemperate foray into the world of gun control politics has been met with the disgust it deserves. However, it shouldn’t be met with surprise.

Since the late 1990s, Levi’s has used its name and resources to attack gun rights. In 1999, the company gave $100,000 to gun control group PAX, followed by a $250,000 donation in 2000 and another $100,000 in 2001.

PAX was founded in 1998 by Dan Gross, who went on to become president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. PAX would go on to change its name to the Center to Prevent Youth Violence and later merge with the Brady Campaign.

Much like Bloomberg’s Everytown, PAX placed an emphasis on attracting corporate partners to their gun control efforts. As part of Levi’s relationship with PAX, in 1999 the apparel company teamed up with the band Goo Goo Dolls to attract support for the anti-gun group during the Levi’s Fuse ’99 summer concert tour. Concert goers, and visitors to Levi’s website, were encouraged to sign the PAX Youth Petition. Moreover, the denim company donated a percentage of all Levi’s Fuse ’99 t-shirt proceeds to the gun control group.

The PAX Youth Petition endorsed a variety of severe gun control measures that have repeatedly been rejected by the American public through their elected representatives. The document called for the “licensing and registration of guns, like automobiles.” The petition also demanded the “elimination of assault weapons and other weapons of war.” As the 1994 Clinton “Assault Weapons” ban was in place at the time of the petition, this imprecise demand appeared to call for prohibiting the sale of the remaining lawful semi-automatic firearms, confiscation of the firearms grandfathered under the ban, or both.

Given the majority of Levi’s 165-year history, Bergh’s decision to use a formerly-quintessential American company to attack a quintessential American right is a particularly sad episode in the current surge in corporate virtue-signaling. We can only assume that Levi’s accountants have determined that resulting skinny jeans sales will be enough to offset the permanent damage to their once-cherished brand.

 

Oregon Teen Shoots Down Discriminatory Walmart Gun Policy

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

A young woman challenged Walmart policy not to sell her a long gun. Read about how this is playing out HERE

walmart

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

In what might come as a shock to the legacy press, it turns out there are plenty of young people who value their Second Amendment rights and are willing to fight for them. Case in point: 18-year-old Hannah Brumbles of Deer Island, Ore. Last week, the Beaver State’s Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) ruled in the young woman’s favor after she challenged a Walmart policy that denied shotgun and rifle sales to young adults ages 18 to 20.

In the wake of the February 14 shooting in Parkland, Fla., retailers Dick’s Sporting Goods (who also owns Field & Stream stores), Kroger-owned Fred Meyer, L.L. Bean, and Wal-Mart adopted policies whereby the stores would refuse to sell shotguns and rifles to young adults ages 18-20. Existing federal law prevents Federal Firearms Licensees from selling handguns to those under 21.

At the time, UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh took to his popular blog, the Volokh Conspiracy, to explain that some state and local governments have enacted anti-discrimination laws that restrict businesses from denying lawful products and services to adults on the basis of age. Therefore, in some jurisdictions, firearms retailers would be barred from carrying out a policy that denied adults ages 18 to 20 the ability to purchase long guns in their stores.

NRA-ILA and the Willamette Week elaborated on Volokh’s point, noting that Section 659A.403(1) of the Oregon Revised Statutes made clear that:
“…all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.”

The Oregon code section contains a specific exemption for the sale of alcohol and marijuana, but no exemption for the sale of firearms.

After Walmart enacted its discriminatory policy, Brumbles attempted to purchase a rifle at a Walmart store in St. Helens and was denied. In response, Brumbles filed a complaint with the BOLI, alleging that the superstore chain’s policy was illegal under the state’s anti-discrimination laws.

On August 21, the BOLI investigators issued a preliminary ruling in favor of the young woman. Characterizing the decision, the Willamette Week reported that “BOLI investigators found that Walmart had violated state nondiscrimination laws and filed formal charges against the company.” According to an account from the Oregonian, “BOLI found that Brumbles did have grounds for the discrimination complaint, and has scheduled a hearing in November where it will hear Walmart’s response and formally rule on the matter.”

Brumbles is seeking $135,000 in damages against Walmart. That figure is the same amount the BOLI fined a Gresham, Ore. bakery in 2015 after the business refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Walmart reportedly rejected the $135,000 proposal and countered with and offer of $150. Discussing the megastore’s counteroffer, Hannah’s father Chris Brumbles told Willamette Week, “It was a joke, it was kind of a spit in the face to her… It’s not about money but I would like Walmart to feel a little sting, like I would if I broke the law.” The BOLI has suggested a $5,000 penalty.

The parties are set to face off again at a formal hearing in November. Walmart has made clear that it intends to defend its discriminatory practice. In a statement to the Willamette Week, the retail giant explained,

In February of this year, we reviewed our policy on firearm and ammunition sales and as a result, we raised the age restriction for the purchase of those items to 21. We stand behind our decision and plan to defend it… Settlement discussions are designed to be confidential and we won’t comment on them. We are preparing for the November hearing before the administrative law judge.

Walmart’s continued intransigence places politics over sound policy. The simple truth is that long guns are rarely used to commit murder. FBI statistics show that in 2016 there were 374 murders committed with rifles. A tragedy to be certain, but one that must be placed in context. That same year 1,604 murders were committed using “knives or cutting instruments,” 472 with “blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.),” and 659 with hands, fists, or feet.

Brumbles’s fight against discriminatory corporate anti-gun policies is an encouraging example of youth pro-gun activism and further proof that the establishment media’s attempts to paint an entire generation as anti-Second Amendment are biased, lazy, and wrong.