Category Archives: NRA

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.

Too Young or Too Old… To Own a Gun?

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

The latest approach to “Goldilocks-style Gun Control” seeks to restrict gun ownership with age limits on “both ends.” READ MORE

gun rights denied

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

A common theme among anti-gun extremists is what we often refer to as the “Goldilocks” approach to limiting access to firearms by law-abiding citizens. Rather than admit that the ultimate goal is to disarm all Americans, those opposed to the Second Amendment create fictional arguments about why certain types of firearms, ammunition, or even accessories should be eliminated.

In the 70s, the goal was to ban handguns. Since they could be carried concealed for personal protection, they were seen as being “too small.” That argument fell out of fashion as more and more states passed Right-to-Carry laws that recognized the right to personal protection.

One subset of the anti-handgun hysteria included inexpensive handguns (so-called “Saturday Night Specials”), which were deemed “too cheap.” When NRA and others pointed out this was an obvious attempt to disarm lower income citizens (who are often at higher risk to being victims of violent crime), the term “Saturday Night Special” faded from the gun-ban lexicon.

Another subset of the attack on handguns came with the introduction of Glocks, and other handguns that used polymers as part of their construction. These were falsely claimed to be able to pass through metal detectors and x-ray machines undetected, and, thus, “too invisible” to be screened where firearm are prohibited (think airports). Of course, this canard was quickly dispelled.

Ammunition has been attacked as “too lethal,” “too untraceable,” “too bad for the environment (lead),” “too inexpensive (so tax it),” and any number of other “toos.”

Rifles have been called “too powerful,” “too modifiable,” “too accurate,” “too similar to actual military arms,” and the list goes on.

Boiled down to its essence, after wading through myriad “too this” and “too that” arguments, the just-right “Goldilocks” of guns would likely be a break-action .22 rifle, although finding acceptable lead-free ammunition might be a bit difficult. But anti-gun extremists can still claim they don’t want to ban “all” guns.

The latest approach to “Goldilocks-style Gun Control,” though, seems to be focusing less on what you can own, and focusing more on who can own firearms. And we don’t mean people with criminal records.

After the horrific tragedy that took place in Parkland, Florida, this year, age became the new battle cry for those seeking to limit gun ownership. Rather than focusing on the obvious failures at various levels of government to identify the copious warning signs exhibited by the alleged perpetrator, extremists decided to focus on the fact that law-abiding citizens are able to exercise their rights protected under the Second Amendment when they reach the age of 18. Although responsible young adults regularly leave home, join the military, get married, and begin voting at this age, the anti-gun community has decided this age is too young for one to exercise the right of gun ownership.

Eighteen-year-olds have not been prohibited from purchasing and possessing rifles and shotguns at the federal level, and in the vast majority of states, since the founding of our country. Nonetheless, because of the violent acts of one individual, we have seen an onslaught of legislation throughout the country that seeks to raise the minimum age to purchase and/or possess rifles and shotguns from 18 to 21. Because common sense has taken a back seat to raw emotionalism in today’s gun control debate, some of these efforts have seen success.

But being deemed “too young” to own firearms isn’t the only threat to face the pro-Second Amendment community. There may be a new approach beginning to form. You might soon be deemed “too old.”

An article by JoNel Aleccia and Melissa Bailey, published by Kaiser Health News (KHN) and PBS NewsHour, has begun making the rounds with a number of media outlets, such as CNN, and it discusses the issue of gun owners who may be suffering from dementia. Sort of.

Dementia can be a devastating disorder. It is a category of diseases, including Alzheimer’s, that affects the brain, and its impact on individuals varies widely. Mild forms can lead to simple cognitive declines, such as slight memory loss, that are little different than one would experience during the normal aging process. More severe and advanced cases of dementia, on the other hand, can lead to dramatic changes in those afflicted that would require professional health care, and perhaps even commitment to a dedicate healthcare facility.

Of course, discussing the problem of dementia is a conversation worthy of having. Unfortunately, the KHN/PBS article is riddled with language that sounds like it came straight from one of the gun-ban groups being funded by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg. We can only presume it is likely to be used to promote anti-gun policies that focus on prohibition, and ignore reason and constitutional considerations.

The tone of the article (a lengthy one) is set early, when it inaccurately describes our nation with the all-too-commonly heard inflammatory claim that, today, “America copes with an epidemic of gun violence….” In fact, America’s murder rate has fallen to a near all-time low. If anything, we have been doing remarkably well since the violent crime peak in the early 90s, with violent crime and murder rates decreasing by about half.

But repeating anti-gun rhetoric is just the start.

Aleccia and Bailey go on to refer to an analysis of Washington state survey data that claims approximately 54,000 residents who are 65 and older have “some cognitive decline” as well as a firearm in the home. Is this really important to note? No, because two key facts are ignored.

First, cognitive decline is common among the elderly, and can manifest itself as simply slight memory loss. It does not mean dementia is present. In fact, the epidemiologist who analyzed the survey data even “cautions that the answers are self-reported and that people who’ve actually been diagnosed with dementia likely are unable to respond to the survey.” So now, rather than dementia being the concern, it’s simply old age.

Second, the story refers to these people (again, likely just elderly folks with no known mental disorder) having “access to weapons,” as if that is a concern. However, they may not even have access. The survey apparently asked if there was a firearm in the home. The person surveyed could very well be living in a home that has firearms in it, but not have access to the firearm. A son or daughter who takes in a parent, for example, could be the person who owns the firearm in the home, and may not allow others access to it.

The authors also seem to lament, “Only five states have laws allowing families to petition a court to temporarily seize weapons from people who exhibit dangerous behavior.” These are the so-called “red flag” or “extreme risk protection order” laws that are being promoted nationwide. They generally lack sufficient due process protections necessary for deprivation of a constitutional right and are often rife for abuse.

Furthermore, dementia is not a “temporary” disease. It has no cure. If an individual is exhibiting “dangerous behavior,” it is, in all likelihood, going to continue, and probably increase. All states have a process to seek to have someone’s competency adjudicated or be involuntarily committed, which could result in a more permanent firearm prohibition. And, these laws generally protect due process by allowing individuals to put on their own defense and challenge the allegation before having their rights infringed by the state.

To make matters worse, Aleccia and Bailey also spoke with long-time anti-gun researcher Garen Wintemute, as part of their parroting of the false argument that NRA has stopped “public health research into the effects of gun violence.” Wintemute is the director of the anti-gun University of California Firearm Violence Research Center, so it is clear that there is research going on.

Ultimately, while the subject of treatment for dementia patients is a very serious issue that deserves more scientific inquiry, using such a terrible disease as a pretext to preemptively disarm elderly Americans is unacceptable. As we have said many times before, NRA supports any reasonable steps to fix America’s broken mental health system. But if the debate is going to move towards one more Goldilocks argument suggesting that just getting “too old” is reason enough to confiscate firearms, as this article might suggest, then that is a debate we will not bear.

D.C. Political Comedian Robbed At Gunpoint Changes Stance On Guns

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

“That level of fear and that level of helplessness that you feel, it doesn’t compare to anything else I’ve felt in my life…” READ MORE

tim young

SOURCE: WUSA9.com, Dori Olmos

Political comedian Tim Young was heading to The Wharf, one of D.C.’s newest hotspots, when his life changed.

He was walking down a well-lit section of M Street at about 7:45 p.m. on a Wednesday when two men approached him — one of them had a gun.

“Terrified. You know, when I talk to people about this…you’re scared. There’s no man card involved. I was defenseless,” explained Young, who’s a political comedian and host of ‘No Things Considered’ at the D.C. Examiner. The men stole his cell phone and then ran off.

Check out Tim Young’s tweet HERE

Young said that 6 to 7 people witnessed his attack, but no one tried to help him while it was going on. Two people called 911 after it was over and the “rest of the folks walked off.”

Young: “They just stood by and watched as I was yelling for help. ‘Help, I’m being robbed!’ They stood by and watched…”

Young grew up in Southwest Baltimore and said that he had been in some bad places in his life, but nothing ever happened to him then. He assumed things would continue to go that way. Now, he said he absolutely plans to apply for a concealed carry permit in D.C., but that’s not easy; D.C. is one of the toughest places in the country to get a concealed weapons carry permit.

Young: “When you’re in an instance where there’s a gun is pointed at you and your life is being threatened for your property and no one’s going to help, and now I know that no one’s going to help, I want to feel more secure. I want to feel safe, and I have something to defend myself with.”

He addressed people who are against conceal carry permits by saying they’ve probably never been in his position.

“I think a lot of those people who are opposed to having a conceal carry permit and being able to own a weapon have never had one pointed directly at them when they have nothing on them,” Young said.

Read the whole story HERE

 

A Royal Pain: UK Malcontents Throw Tantrum over Prince George’s Toy Gun

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Big trouble over the Royal Squirt Gun. Folks, this true! READ MORE

royal squirt gun

S0URCE: NRA-ILA

The United Kingdom’s legions of miserable-scolds are at it again. A mere two weeks after admonishing an English national team soccer player for a firearm tattoo, the anti-gun whiners have found a new target. This time the killjoys have deemed it their station to lecture the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on proper parenting.

The sad controversy erupted on June 10, as Kate Middleton, Prince George, and his sister Princess Charlotte watched Prince William participate in the Maserati Royal Charity Polo Trophy in Gloucestershire. During the match, four-year-old George was pictured playing in the grass with an orange-tipped toy revolver and a toy knife. According to an account from Gloucestershire Live, the revolver was a squirt gun the future king won as a carnival prize.

Soon after, the UK’s notoriously loathsome tabloid press got busy stoking a toy gun debate. The Mirror declared, “Outrage as Prince George plays with toy gun and knife on family day out amid surge in violence.” The Mirror cited a Twitter user who saw fit to judge the preschooler and his entire family by stating:
“Sad to see George playing with a gun when the whole country has a gun/knife crime situation. Maybe in training for killing wild life in later years. Thought he was a sensitive child. Better if he was seen playing with a toy car or football. Sadly the royals will never change.”

Another tweeted, “This isn’t okay anymore…” adding, “No child in this day and age should look at any gun as a fun toy.”

Thankfully, some of the more sensible UK subjects have come to the royals’ defense with the facts. The Independent interviewed trained UK Psychotherapist Sarah Ockwell-Smith who explained:
“I understand why gun play worries parents, however research shows that any aggression demonstrated while engaging in ‘war play’ is not carried over into real life. ie: kids who play with guns become no more violent than those who don’t.”

Then adding:
“…even if parents restrict gun-toys, it incredibly likely that children will fashion their own, from a stick for instance. For this reason, combined with the evidence, I see no issue with letting children play with guns and happily allowed my own children to do so.”

This is similar to what U.S. experts have said and written on this topic. Moreover, as NRA-ILA has previously reported, concerns about toy guns appear to be rooted more in the political prejudice of adults rather than any legitimate concern for childhood well-being.

When clinical psychologist and best-selling author Michael G. Thompson, Ph.D. was interviewed for a WebMD article titled, “Toy Guns: Do They Lead to Real-Life Violence?,” he explained, “There’s no scientific evidence suggesting that playing war games in childhood leads to real-life aggression.” University of Nevada Las Vegas researchers Jennifer L. Hart, M.Ed and Michelle T. Tannock, Ph.D. addressed this matter in a chapter on aggressive play and war toys for the Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development. The pair wrote, “If playful aggression is supported, it is highly beneficial to child development.” Going further, the researchers noted, “Educators who hold a foundation of understanding will be better able to communicate the importance of not only allowing playful aggression but also supporting it with the inclusion of war toys in early childhood programs.”

Rather than criticize the royals’ parenting, or wholesome fun with a water pistol, a more reasonable course of action might have been to commend the royals as role models for outdoor play. The Centers for Disease Control has noted, “Research increasingly suggests that children benefit from the opportunity to play outdoors, where they can explore and enjoy natural environments.” A 2012 survey of the research on outdoor play published in the journal Health & Place explained, “encouragement of outdoor play and fostering an environment of movement among children improves the physical, emotional, social, and cognitive health of children…”

Much like in the U.S., polling shows UK children are not getting outside enough. According to the Guardian coverage of one 2016 poll, “three-quarters of UK children spend less time outside than prison inmates.” A 2016 UK government study found that more than 10 percent of UK children had not been to a natural environment (including urban parks) in the past year. A 2016 survey from the UK’s National Trust found that the country’s children spent only half as much time playing outside as their parents did.

If history is any guide, this won’t be the last time Prince George or the royals face firearms-related criticism. Despite the family’s significant conservation efforts, animal rights activists have targeted the royals for their proud hunting tradition. In 2016, anti-hunting critics took issue with Prince William’s articulate defense of big game hunting. Prince Philip and Prince Harry have also been the targets of anti-hunting animus.

Given the political disposition of many of his future subjects, Prince George can probably expect a lifetime of criticism should he follow his family into the shooting sports. On a positive note, the four-year-old already appears to be more mature than his most vocal detractors.

D.C. Area Witches Unite for Gun Control, Hurl Curses at the NRA

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Gun control advocates can now boast of a new group of allies joining their dubious coalition: witches. This is true! READ MORE

witches

S0URCE: NRA-ILA

It kind of makes sense.

We all know that gun control is based mainly on magical thinking.

Its advocates, after all, ask us to believe we’re just a few more “commonsense safety measures” away from a world in which evil people who are otherwise determined to kill others refrain from doing so for fear they might violate a gun control law somewhere along the way.

A related premise is that gun control advocates hold the keys to ending violent behavior once and for all, if only the NRA would release its stranglehold on elected officials and taxpayers would pony up the money for “studies” to substantiate their agenda.

According to website wildhunt.org — which features “modern pagan news and commentary” — “documentary filmmaker” Patrick J. Foust has captured a “spellbinding on Donald Trump and the NRA” led by self-described witch David Salisbury.

Foust said he was inspired to make the film, which he’s dubbed The Binding, after seeing news footage of witches conducting a similar ritual on President Trump shortly after his inauguration.

The Binding’s titular event features Salisbury and seven other witches surrounding a table festooned with, among other things, a cauldron sitting atop a pentacle, as well as “a five-dollar bill painted red — to symbolize blood — and a piece of paper with the huge block letters ‘NRA.’” Salisbury stridently hurls curses at those he characterizes as “merchants of mayhem, profiteers of pain, dealers of death,” who “fatten on the blood of innocents and feast like demons on their corpses!” He continues, “May your thoughts and prayers turn to poison in your mouths.”

Foust hopes to promote his 14-minute film on the festival circuit and then make it available on the Internet. He describes himself as a “hardcore liberal Democrat” who “felt like the whole world came crashing down around us” on November 9, 2016. “I saw the Trump Tower binding,” he told Wild Hunt, “and realized there was this tremendous opportunity to tell a story about how this election of Donald Trump has affected spiritual beings, affected all of us really.”

Internet research led Foust to Salisbury, who the article describes as “an activist Witch with a social justice bent” living in Washington, D.C. Salisbury claims to use “the Craft to promote social justice and empower marginalized communities.” He explained, “Gun violence in America is something I’ve always felt kind of helpless about,” but “[i]f there is anything I can do at all that’s even remotely effective, that might be magic.”

Foust admitted that he didn’t know much about witchcraft when embarking on the project, but he had at least been exposed to Paganism and the occult through books and films such as Outlander. “[B]ut as far as what daily life looked like for a modern-day Witch, I really didn’t know too much,” he acknowledged. He hopes his film will allow viewers “to see that we’re all kind of the same.”

Good luck with that.

The film has yet to be released, although the ritual it depicts was apparently conducted during Samhain 2017 (Oct. 1 through Nov. 1). It’s unclear from the Wild Hunt article whether the spellbinding was supposed to take effect immediately or at a later date, but we can report that the NRA has not experienced any uptick in paranormal activity or supernatural suppression of our affairs in the interim.

We are, on the other hand, experiencing record levels of support from people who understand better than ever from recent events that those who are determined to disarm law-abiding Americans will stoop to any tactic and exploit any perceived advantage to advance their prohibitory agenda. That includes, so it seems, attempting to use magic spells to accomplish what they have failed to achieve through other means.

As for the NRA, we’ll leave it to the gun control movement to appeal to Hekate, Queen of Witches. We prefer the more down-to-earth channels of education, political activism, and grassroots organizing.

Besides, an NRA membership is still a lot more economical, and far more effective, than trying to bargain with the spirit world.

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.