Category Archives: NRA

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.

Dick’s Sporting Goods Sales Soft Following Anti-gun Efforts

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

The payback continues after this major chain chose to ignore both the 2nd Amendment and its customer’s wishes. Here’s MORE

dick's

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Dick’s Sporting Goods has admitted that Chairman and CEO Edward W. Stack’s repeated attacks on law-abiding gun owners could be having a negative effect on the company’s bottom line. According to a press release reporting the company’s second quarter earnings results, “consolidated same store sales decreased 4.0%.” The document stated, “Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in any forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to… negative reactions to our policies related to the sale of firearms and accessories.”

In February, Stack announced that Dick’s would stop selling certain configurations of semiautomatic rifles in its Field & Stream stores and stop selling standard capacity magazines entirely. The CEO also declared that Dick’s and Field & Stream stores would no longer sell shotguns and rifles to young adults ages 18 to 20. In May, Dick’s announced that it would destroy the stock of semiautomatic rifles it had chosen not to sell, rather than return the firearms to the manufacturers.

Stack’s high-profile decision to target long guns revealed his penchant for virtue-signaling, but also his ignorance on policy. Shotguns and rifles are rarely used in violent crime. A 2013 Department of Justice survey of research on semiautomatic bans determined that “a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.” In a survey of gun research published earlier this year, the Rand Corporation found no conclusive evidence a ban on commonly-owned semiautomatic firearms would impact violent crime. Moreover, in some jurisdictions it is illegal for retailers to discriminate against young adults on the basis of age.

Not content to lead by example, Stack also took to the pages of USA Today to demand that federal lawmakers enact a raft of gun control measures that the American people have repeatedly rejected. Stack called for a federal ban on commonly-owned semiautomatic firearms and their magazines, prohibiting young adults from purchasing shotguns and rifles, and the criminalization of private firearm transfers. In order to impose Stack’s vision on all Americans, Dick’s hired three gun control lobbyists.

In response to Dick’s gun control efforts, in May the Board of Governors for the National Shooting Sports Foundation — the firearm industry trade group — voted to expel the company “for conduct detrimental to the best interests of the Foundation.” This was followed by firearms manufacturers Springfield Armory and O.F. Mossberg & Sons, and marketer MKS Supply announcing that they were cutting ties with the retailer.

Perhaps fearing that Dick’s’ poor sales figures might discourage other corporations from engaging in anti-gun activism at shareholders’ expense, CNN went out of their way to erect an alternative explanation. According to “the most trusted name in news,” investors should ignore Dick’s own admissions regarding the negative consequences of their gun control positions and blame stiff competition from online retailers and the store’s delicate relationship with one of its apparel brands for the inadequate performance.

Spin as CNN might, Stack predicted the negative consequences the anti-gun actions would have for his company. In a post-earnings call in March, Stack admitted, “The announcement we made two weeks ago regarding our firearms policy is not going to be positive from a traffic standpoint and a sales standpoint.”

With NSSF estimating the firearms industry’s economic impact at $51 billion, Stack’s March prediction was common sense. It’s unfortunate that Stack is unable to employ that same judgment to predict the obvious outcome of Dick’s ineffective gun control policies.

NRA Wins Lawsuit in Washington State, Prevents I-1639 From Appearing on Ballot

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

The National Rifle Association recently filed a lawsuit challenging the Washington Secretary of State’s decision to certify the significantly flawed and inaccurate petition sheets for Initiative 1639. AND WON! READ MORE

1639 no

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

On August 17 the Thurston County Superior Court ruled in favor of the National Rifle Association and ordered a writ of mandamus to prevent I-1639 from appearing on the ballot. The judge agreed the signature sheets did not comply with state law — the font size was too small to be readable and didn’t include strikethroughs.

“The National Rifle Association is glad to see the court today recognized how negligent, if not worse, gun control advocates were in their signature-gathering for this ill-advised ballot initiative,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA. “We got involved because I-1639 tramples on the rights of Washington state voters, and because the way these anti-gun activists went about pushing their agenda was egregious. We applaud this decision, and will remain vigilant in protecting the constitutional freedoms of all Americans.”

Among other things, I-1639;

Creates a gun registry for any transfers of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles;

Introduces a 10-business day waiting period on the purchase of semi-automatic rifles;

Imposes criminal liability on otherwise law-abiding gun owners who fail to store their firearms to state standards;

Increases the age limit to possess or purchase semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21;

Mandates training prior to purchase;

And authorizes a $25 fee to be assessed to semiautomatic rifle purchasers.

The initiative proponents will likely appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court and we will continue to advocate on behalf of our law-abiding members in the Evergreen state.

Educational Institutions: No NRA Members Need Apply

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

“Being an actual, admitted communist … is less harmful to one’s career prospects than being an NRA member.” Whoa. READ THE WHOLE STORY

no nra

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Like most people, we understand that educational institutions and staff tend to lean left. The degree and intensity of the bend varies across universities, but a leftward orientation is actually expected today.

We’re aware that some — perhaps even many — academics look upon the NRA and gun owners with disdain. We always hoped this didn’t extend to the individual level, that the disdain was limited to the aggregate, and that personal interactions could be open-minded or — gasp! — even cordial.

The thought that academics would consider NRA members the bottom of the proverbial barrel never occurred to us. We never imagined that more college professors would be comfortable with an avowed communist than with an NRA member. It sounds like a joke, like an appeal to extremes to call attention to the absurd, but that’s precisely what a new study has discovered. A sociology professor at the University of North Texas found that political biases in academia peak with NRA members.

Professor George Yancey wanted to investigate possible hiring discrimination in higher education. He asked professors across the country how their support for a job applicant would change if they knew the applicant was a member of certain groups. Of all the groups Yancey tested, “NRA membership was ranked as the most likely to hurt an aspiring professor’s chances of getting hired.”

NRA membership was more damaging than being a Republican, a Libertarian, a vegetarian, a member of the ACLU, or a member of the Green Party. NRA membership is considered more damaging than being a communist.

Overall, more than two in five professors say a person’s membership in the NRA would “‘damage’ an applicant’s chances of getting hired.” Yancey suspects that, “academics envision individuals in the NRA as being on the far right.” Yancey also found that “meat hunters, evangelicals, and fundamentalists also are less likely to be hired.”

Imagine that. Being an actual, admitted communist — who proudly acknowledges being as far left as left can go — is less harmful to one’s career prospects than being an NRA member.

We’ve heard about high school teachers kicking students out of class for wearing NRA shirts. We’ve heard politicians disparage this association and its membership. But to hear that college professors would rather work with a communist than an NRA member is just sad. We found two takeaways from this: first, an inability to explain one’s adherence to a political and economic ideology with an absolute perfect failure rate probably doesn’t matter in academia and, two, academia is somehow even more out of touch with America than any of us thought.

Remember that the next time “academics” release a “study” on “gun violence.”

Teen Kicked Out Of Class Over NRA Shirt

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

An angry mother is speaking out after she says a Lodi (CA) High School history teacher targeted students wearing T-shirts advertising the National Rifle Association. KEEP READING

teen kicked out of class

SOURCE: CBS Sacremento 13, by Angela Greenwood 

Two sophomores were wearing the NRA shirts when they say they were singled out in class by their teacher, who started schooling them on why guns are bad.

nra shirt

“She was basically being attacked in class,” said mother Charlene Craig. “That guns kill people,” said Craig.

It’s a lesson Craig says was way out of line. “I think he’s there to teach. I don’t think he’s there to discuss his personal beliefs.”

It happened during history class on Friday.

Craig: “He basically yelled at her, telling her that she would be writing an essay if she disagreed with him.”

Craig says her 15-year-old daughter was lectured, while another student was sent to the principal’s office for refusing to take off the NRA shirt — a shirt that supports lifestyles they’ve grown up within families of hunters and farmers.

“That’s what she is, that’s what she does,” said her mother.

The shirt had an NRA logo on the front, and on the back were pictures of shell casings outlined in an American Flag. Below that reads the words “National Rifle Association.” What’s missing from the shirt is a picture of a gun and exactly why Craig says the students should have been left alone. “The dress code clearly states weapons,” said Craig.

According to a statement from the Lodi Unified School District, “…the school administration reviewed the t-shirt in question and determined that it did not violate school dress code policy.”

lodi dress code

Craig says she realizes it’s a sensitive topic but says students shouldn’t be punished for the political or personal beliefs of their teachers. “I am going continue to send my daughter to school in it. I don’t see that there’s a problem.”

Lodi Unified also says it plans to refresh all staff about dress code policies, so this type of incident does not happen again.

See the full TV news story HERE

Cuomo Urges Other States To Hit NRA Finances As Group Claims Losses

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is pushing governors to target the National Rifle Association, again… READ THE FULL STORY

cuomo

SOURCE: Politico
By Jimmy Vielkind

The National Rifle Association sued Cuomo and his financial services superintendent in May, saying fines by the state Department of Financial Services were exacting a “political vendetta” by the Democratic governor that was having a chilling effect on its advocacy.

Early last week, Cuomo urged leaders in other states to take similar actions against the NRA’s Carry Guard insurance program, which covers legal costs stemming from self-defense shootings, something New York argues is unlawful. The NY Department of Financial Services has also pushed firms not to do business with the NRA, the NRA contends, under threat the firms could lose their license to operate in New York.

The effect of these moves and Cuomo’s public statements has been to “coerce insurance agencies, insurers and banks into terminating business relationships with the NRA that were necessary to the survival of the NRA as a charitable organization,” the NRA said in an amended complaint filed July 20.

Cuomo: “If I could have put the NRA out of business, I would have done it 20 years ago,” the governor said late Friday after Attorney General Barbara Underwood filed a motion to dismiss the NRA’s suit. He added on Saturday: “I’m tired of hearing the politicians say, we’ll remember them in our thoughts and prayers. If the NRA goes away, I’ll remember the NRA in my thoughts and prayers.”

Cuomo wrote to other governors last Monday, urging them to “examine your laws and determine whether or not this product is being illegally sold in your state, and I encourage you to follow New York’s lead and block the sale of these NRA products if they are illegal, or to outlaw these products if they are not already prohibited.”

He took his message to national media outlets, including CNN, MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” and National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered” on Sunday. Cuomo, who is seeking a third term in November and faces a Democratic primary challenge from Cynthia Nixon, also released a campaign advertisement.

Gun control is popular in New York, especially among Democrats, polls show. In 2013, about a month after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, Cuomo pushed through a multi-pronged gun-control bill called the SAFE Act, NY S2230 (13R).

Cuomo, who is positioning himself for a possible 2020 presidential run, has seized on the issue in the wake of subsequent shootings, including at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. A July analysis by Quorum found that Cuomo made more public statements about guns than any other governor in 2018.

The NRA deferred comment to William Brewer, its lawyer in the suit against Cuomo. Brewer said the NRA stands by its Carry Guard program.

Brewer: “It appears the Governor has launched yet another crusade against the NRA to fuel his political ambitions,” Brewer said in a statement. “The governor’s current campaign against the NRA extends far beyond Carry Guard. His scorched earth tactics are designed to prohibit the NRA from having access to insurance and banking services — simply because he disagrees with the political viewpoint of this law-abiding organization. Suffice it to say, the NRA will continue to vigorously defend itself, advocate for the Second Amendment, and fight to protect the Constitutional freedoms of all Americans.”

It’s unclear how much Carry Guard, which was launched in April 2017, contributes. According to the NRA’s most recently available tax returns, it took in $366.9 million and spent $412.7 million in 2016.

So far, no other states have heeded Cuomo’s call, a spokesperson said.

Fired FBI Director James Comey Pushes Gun Control, Bashes NRA

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Comey advocates for stricter gun laws and delivers harsh criticism for NRA in a UK address. READ MORE

james comey

 

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Fired FBI Director James Comey’s self-aggrandizement tour continued apace last week. Momentarily turning his attention from attacking President Trump, Comey used the occasion of a trip to the largely-disarmed United Kingdom as an opportunity to advocate for stricter U.S. gun laws and to level barbs at NRA.

In an interview with the UK’s iNews published last Tuesday, Comey appeared to express his support for ongoing efforts to restrict young adults ages 18-20 from acquiring firearms and for a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. Comey told the media outlet:

“Surely there are things we can agree upon that relate to who’s able to buy a weapon, what kind of weapon and at what age, what the capabilities of the weapon are, how many rounds does it hold, and things like that, that in no way threaten the rights under the US constitution of people to keep and bear arms.”

Comey’s statement on gun control is puzzling. Legislation that extinguishes young adults’ ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights is by its very nature a threat to, “the rights under the US constitution [sic] of people to keep and bear arms.” Moreover, so is a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. That’s not just NRA’s position; that’s the position of the U.S. Supreme Court, which affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms in the District of Columbia v. Heller case.

In Heller, the late Justice Antonin Scalia explained that the Second Amendment protects the ownership of firearms, “of the kind in common use at the time.” The AR-15, the favorite target of current gun ban legislation, is America’s most popular rifle. Moreover, Scalia Joined Justice Thomas to dissent from a denial of certiorari in the case of Friedman v. Highland Park, which concerned a ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. In the dissent, Thomas wrote:

“The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.”

Addressing NRA, Comey stated, “One of the worst things that goes on in the US is the current voice of the National Rifle Association, because it sells fear in the wake of any incident.” The former FBI director went on to add:

“[NRA’s] constant argument is: ‘It’s a slippery slope. If we restrict a particular kind of weapon or raise the age of purchase, it means the end of gun ownership in the US.’ And that argument is a lie… There’s no slippery slope in America when it comes to guns. It’s a concrete staircase, which is our constitution…. We just have to decide should we go up a stair or down a stair.”

While Comey might liken U.S. gun laws to a, “concrete staircase,” it’s unlikely many gun owners in jurisdictions such as California, New Jersey, and New York feel confident in their footing. For them the slippery slope of gun control is an everyday reality. Faced with a federal judiciary that is often unwilling to honor the rulings of the Supreme Court, as Justice Thomas has pointed out on numerous occasions, the Second Amendment offers these Americans little security.

Moreover, the slippery slope isn’t pro-gun fear mongering, it’s gun control advocates’ stated policy. In a 1976 New Yorker interview, National Council to Control Handguns (precursor to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) Chairman Nelson T. Shields stated:

“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily—given the political realities — going to be very modest… So then we’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time.”

Moreover, the character of recent gun control efforts has made Comey’s position untenable. In March, John Paul Stevens took to the opinion page of the New York Times to call for the repeal of the Second Amendment. In recent years, the New York Times and the Boston Globe have run pieces calling for firearms confiscation. On the 2016 campaign trail, Hillary Clinton lamented the Heller decision, refused to acknowledge that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and endorsed Australia’s confiscatory gun control measures. Anti-gun protests are replete with calls to disarm citizens.

An exchange that appears near the end of the iNews item might reveal the most about Comey. The fired FBI director explained that he chose not to carry a firearm while at the FBI, stating, “I was surrounded by armed people all day long. If I wasn’t safe in the hands of the FBI, then our country was really in trouble.” Here Comey admitted that despite being one of the nation’s highest ranking law enforcement officials, he was unwilling to concern himself with any personal responsibility for his own safety and the safety of those around him.

Government Admits AR-15s Are Not ‘Weapons of War’

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

State Department and Department of Justice offer definitions of “military equipment,” and it’s NOT an AR-15… READ MORE

ar15

SOURCE: Breitbart
AWR Hawkins

In its settlement with Cody Wilson’s Defense Distributed the government admitted that semi-automatic firearms below .50 caliber are not weapons of war.

On July 10, 2018, Breitbart News reported that the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) brought a suit against the State Department on Wilson’s behalf. The suit was filed in 2015 and was the result of State Department action to force Wilson to quit sharing 3-D gun files online.

Wilson and SAF fought the suit on First Amendment grounds and secured a settlement with the State Department and the Department of Justice, the latter of which finalizes the settlement.

The amended regulations proposed in the settlement show the government will no longer look at semi-automatic firearms below .50 caliber as “military equipment” or weapons of war.

In offering a definition of “military equipment” the settlement says:

“The phrase ‘Military Equipment’ means (1) Drums and other magazines for firearms to 50 caliber (12.7mm) inclusive with a capacity greater than 50 rounds, regardless of the jurisdiction of the firearm, and specially designed parts and components therefor; (2) Parts and components specifically designed for conversion of a semi-automatic firearm to a fully automatic firearm; (3) Accessories or attachments specifically designed to automatically stabilize aim (other than gun rests) or for automatic targeting, and specifically designed parts and components therefor.”

Attorneys in the case expounded on the amended regulations by pointing out that the settlement “expressly acknowledges that non-automatic firearms up to .50 caliber widely available in retail outlets in the United States and abroad [a scope that includes AR-15 and other assault-style rifles], are not inherently military.”

Second Amendment Foundation founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb spoke to Breitbart News about the settlement, saying:

“Not only is this a First Amendment victory for free speech, it also is a devastating blow to the gun prohibition lobby. For years, anti-gunners have contended that modern semi-automatic sport-utility rifles are so-called “weapons of war,” and with this settlement, the government has acknowledged they are nothing of the sort.”

The federal government now saying semi-automatic firearms below .50 caliber are not inherently military means that they are admitting that rifles like the AR-15 are civilian in nature. This makes perfect sense, as they existed years before the military adopted the fully automatic version.

Gottlieb added, “Gun rights organizations like the Second Amendment Foundation will now be able to use this government admission in debate and courtrooms from New York to California.”

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