Category Archives: NRA

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

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

Gov. Abbott

SOURCE: texas.gov.com, AP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

READ Gov. Abbott’s proposal HERE

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

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

trump

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MATCH REPORT: Sokalowski Wins 2018 NRA Bianchi Cup

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Crawfish Cup winner, SFC Adam Sokolowski is the 2018 NRA Bianchi champion! READ MORE

bianchi champion

SOURCE: Various news outlets

With a perfect score of 1920-176X, SFC Adam Sokolowski of the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit (USAMU) is the 2018 champion of Colt’s NRA Bianchi Cup, the NRA Action Pistol championship event. Additionally, Sokolowski won the Multi Gun Championship with a score of 3822-329X.

SFC Adam Sololowski
SFC Adam Sololowski.

Mark Blake was second, ending up in a points tie with 18-time Bianchi Cup winner and perennial “top gun” best-bet, Doug Koenig; scorecard review broke the tie.

Sokolowski won Midsouth Shooters Supply Crawfish Cup earlier this year, and became now the third time the winner of this event went on to claim the NRA championship. We’re very proud that the Crawfish Cup has attained that status: if you can win here you can win there…

SFC Sokolowski holds another distinction as an NRA Action Pistol champion: he is the only shooter who has won all three Bianchi Cup divisions — Open, Metallic, and Production (and the first-ever perfect score in the Metallic [sights] division. This man can shoot a pistol! And all that in just four years on the circuit.

Rob Vadasz is the 2018 Metallic champion with 1912-155X, his sixth win in this division. Second place Metallic was Enoch Smith (also 2018 World Action Pistol Metallic Champion) 1907-150X. Third was Roman Hauber with 1906-141X.

In the Production division, Sokolowski’s AMU teammate SFC Patrick Franks took the championship home to Ft. Benning with a 1894-136X. Franks previously won back-to-back Bianchi Metallic Championships, as well as having earned a NRA National Precision Pistol Championship. Second went to legendary action pistol shooter Rob Leatham of Team Springfield Armory with a score of 1862-129X. Seiichi Ishikawa followed Rob in third place with 1822-109X.

SFC Patrick Franks
SFC Patrick Franks, Production champion.

Anita Mackiewicz, now a three-time champion, won the Women’s Championship with a score of 1911-153X. Second place went to last year’s winner, Cherie Blake, 1910-137X. 2016 champion Tiffany Piper finished third with 1903-154X.

Read complete coverage by John Parker HERE and HERE

 

PUBLIX Part Two: Publix Suspends Political Contributions Amid Statewide Protests

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

david hogg die in

SOURCE: Tampa Bay Times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moments before the protest began, Publix released its statement.

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

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

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

Check out ADAM PUTNAM HERE

 

PUBLIX Part One: David Hogg Puts Publix In Crosshairs

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

david hogg

SOURCE: AP and Washington Times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Julie Golob Named To Hunting and Shooting Sports Conservation Council

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

julie golob

SOURCE: NRA

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

swallwell

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, he insisted:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The National Rifle Association Sues New York!

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

nra sues cuomo

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oliver North Named New President Of The NRA

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

oliver north

SOURCE: The Washington Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Co-worker Gun-Grab an Agenda-Advancing Expansion of Rights-Denying Orders

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

“Concerned a Co-Worker Is Dangerous?”a KQED News headline asks. “Bill Would Let You Petition State to Take Their Guns.” Really…

coworkers

David Codrea

To make the case for adding to the state’s citizen disarmament options, a couple examples are given of California “gun violence restraining orders” being used to take guns away under petitions filed by family members or law enforcement officers. This latest push expands the list of those eligible to initiate gun seizures to employers, co-workers, high school and college staff members and mental health workers.

The expansion is the “brainchild” of Assemblyman Phil Ting, unsurprisingly a San Francisco Democrat, and this is actually his second attempt to enact it. Also unsurprisingly, both times have been in response to murders that happened in so-called “gun-free zones,” where the killers evidently didn’t get the message (or more likely, got it loud and clear).

That this doesn’t sink in with Ting’s constituents is also no surprise. His violating Assembly rules by “ghost voting” didn’t bother them enough to give him his walking papers. And the unvarnished support he received from convicted “gun criminal” (and former rabidly “anti-gun” California politician) Leland Yee hasn’t raised any eyebrows in his district either.

On the surface — to those who don’t look too deeply below it — protection orders can sound reasonable and what the gun-grabbers call “common sense” (as long as you don’t question American citizens being stripped of a fundamental right without being convicted of anything). And that has put the ACLU, of all groups, on the right side of the issue and at odds with the NRA and no shortage of supposed “conservatives.” Per their Rhode Island chapter:

“The heart of the legislation’s [Extreme Risk Protection Order] ERPO process requires speculation — on the part of both the petitioner and judges — about an individual’s risk of possible violence. But, the ACLU analysis notes: ‘Psychiatry and the medical sciences have not succeeded in this realm, and there is no basis for believing courts will do any better. The result will likely be a significant impact on the rights of many innocent individuals in the hope of preventing a tragedy.’”

But that hasn’t stopped so-called “conservative” pundits from jumping on the protection order bandwagon. Ditto for President Donald Trump and for NRA “A”-rated Lindsey Graham, who couldn’t team up fast enough with “F”- rated Richard Blumenthal…

Unsurprisingly for those of us who follow such things, the same goes for the National Rifle Association. (Hear for yourself starting at 3:15 in their video. Saying “they should have strong due process protections” does not change the fact that such orders really don’t, and can’t by their very nature.)

“[A]s they are currently implemented, these laws come with major pitfalls and potential for serious abuse,” Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership warns. “They violate the principles of liberty and establish a dangerous ‘guilty until proven innocent’ standard. GVROs and ERPOs passed to date violate multiple Constitutional protections beyond the Second Amendment. These include the rights to equal treatment and against unreasonable search and seizure (4th amendment), the rights of the accused (6th), and the right to due process (5th and 14th).”

And, of course, there’s another indisputable reality that none of the proponents of restraining orders want to even acknowledge, let alone talk about:

“Anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian.”

If proven violent persons are still truly dangerous, Robert J. Kukla made a brilliant observation in his 1973 classic “Gun Control,” equating their release from prison with opening the cage of a man-eating tiger and expecting a different result.

If there is “clear, convincing, admissible evidence” that a supposedly “restrained” party is a danger, how is it responsible to allow such a menace access to the rest of us until such time as it can be established that he is no longer a threat? Does anyone think he couldn’t kill with something else? Or, noting routine headlines from places like Chicago and Baltimore, that he couldn’t get a gun? Why wouldn’t he be separated from society, after being afforded real “due process,” with all appropriate protections of course?

Concessions on these measures by the NRA, which in turn gives the green light to Republicans, is nothing short of preemptive surrender. It won’t stop the Democrats from coming back for even more, especially as they perceive they are better positioned to launch their next assault.  Meanwhile, they’ll still continue screaming how the “uncompromising and extremist” NRA is “a terrorist organization” and that Republicans are “fascists.”

We know where the “slippery slope” leads, and that the violence monopolists want it all. Giving them anything makes as much sense as tossing a scrap of flesh to a circling pack of jackals and believing that will satisfy them and make them go away.

Well on its way down that slope, California is on a “gun control” binge reminiscent of an eye-rolling shark feeding frenzy. Thanks to practically unchallengeable Democrat dominance, it has the votes to do pretty much whatever it wants, so don’t be surprised if Ting’s bill passes this time, and that after it does, he and his fellow gun-grabbers, both in and outside of California, will be demanding more.