Category Archives: NRA

SHOT Show 2020: A Deep Dive

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

This year, we’re taking you inside SHOT Show like never before. Stay tuned for a look at new products from the shooting, tactical and reloading world.

Image result for shot show

Imagine you’re in the desert. You’re thrust into a sea of people (80,000 or so) and you’re tasked with finding the latest and greatest in our corner of the industry in a vast labyrinth of booths and vendors. Sounds like a grown-ups candy land of wonders, right? Well, yeah, kinda! It’s also overwhelming, and more than a little intimidating. Being my 6th year in attendance, I’m hoping I can bring you some content besides what’s new, what’s popular, and dive more into what interests you. I’ll also do my best to find some of the weirder stuff along the way. It is Vegas after all.

Image result for shot show

So, stay tuned for more updates, press releases, and more.

Let us know in the comments section just what you’d like to see from the show this year!

Why We Fight To Preserve, Safeguard Our Important Second Amendment

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

The new ILA executive director assures he will fight for me, you, us — and the Constitution. READ MORE

ILA

SOURCE: NRA-ILA by Jason Ouimet

Growing up in New York City during the ‘70s and ‘80s, I saw firsthand the tremendous injustices created by so-called “gun-control” laws.

Crime wasn’t just something we saw on television. It was part of daily life in the city. I had friends who were mugged on the way to school. And I remember praying to see a police officer on a street corner or in a subway station because criminals roamed the city streets and victimized innocent citizens.

In short, my views on the Second Amendment were cemented at a very early age—long before I studied America’s founding documents.

That’s why I joined the NRA before I ever owned a gun. And today, thanks to the NRA and our millions of members like you, I’m able to carry a gun. It’s a freedom I exercise every day. I do it to protect the people I love. I also do it with a profound sense of gratitude to people like you who’ve fought for this freedom—a freedom that was denied to many law-abiding Americans where I grew up.

Now, it’s my sincere honor to serve you and to serve our Second Amendment cause as the new executive director of our NRA Institute for Legislative Action.

Since 2005, I’ve had the privilege of working on the front lines with Wayne LaPierre and other NRA leaders—first as an NRA-ILA federal liaison, then as deputy director of Federal Affairs, then as director of Federal Affairs.

I’m proud to have played a role in advancing the cause of Right to Carry throughout this nation. I’ve been privileged to work one-on-one with U.S. House and Senate leaders to win critical legislative victories—like protecting the U.S. firearms industry from frivolous lawsuits, and defeating Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s infamous gun-ban bill at a time when no one thought it possible.

Fighting together, we stopped the government from confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens during times of national emergency—when, arguably, they need them most. We won monumental victories for our freedom with the Heller and McDonald decisions, which affirmed our individual right to keep and bear arms.

And we defeated Hillary Clinton against all odds—effectively ending the substantial threat another Clinton administration posed to our rights.

In the time ahead, I look forward to continuing our fight together as we defend our gun rights in Congress, all 50 state legislatures, courtrooms nationwide and, of course, at the ballot box.

The fact is, when I stand face-to-face with a governor, U.S. senator, congressman or any legislative leader—I know I’m not alone. I know that you and millions of NRA-ILA supporters are right there with me.

And let me tell you, the politicians know it, too.

There isn’t a single gun-rights victory—big or small—that I’ve witnessed in my 15 years at NRA-ILA that wasn’t a direct result of your hard work, your courage, your leadership and your generous support.

So, more than anything, I’m excited to have this opportunity right now, in this new role and in my first official communication to you, to say Thank You. Thank you for voting, for standing and fighting, for never backing down, for being an NRA member and for being a freedom-loving American.

There is no question that the forces aligned against you, me and our Second Amendment rights are more organized and better-funded than anything we’ve faced before. But no one has done more to make this country a better, safer place than you and your fellow NRA members. And I know that if we continue to fight hard and work together, our long legacy of protecting and strengthening freedom will prevail for years and decades to come.

 

NRA Names Jason Ouimet to Head NRA Institute for Legislative Action

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Jason Ouimet appointed to be ILA executive director. READ MORE

ouimet

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

The National Rifle Association’s executive vice president and CEO, Wayne LaPierre, has named Jason Ouimet to serve as executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). The NRA Board of Directors unanimously affirmed Ouimet’s selection at its recent board meeting.

“Jason is a principled leader with tremendous field vision and political savvy. He has a strong campaign background and more than 15 years playing pivotal roles in all the NRA’s legislative accomplishments and victories. Our five million members and America’s gun owners have the strongest ally and the best advocate in Jason,” said LaPierre.

On his permanent appointment, Ouimet said, “I thank Wayne and the NRA leadership for entrusting me with a post so crucial to America’s freedom. Backed by millions of patriotic NRA members, NRA-ILA is the foremost defender of our Second Amendment, the safeguard of freedom itself. To every NRA member and gun owner in this country, I pledge that our defense will never waver on my watch.”

Ouimet has embraced increasing responsibilities and higher-profile roles during his time with NRA. As director of federal affairs at the NRA-ILA since 2015, Ouimet was responsible for overseeing and implementing the NRA’s federal legislative and political agenda. Between 2010 and 2015, Ouimet served as the deputy director of the NRA’s federal affairs department. Ouimet began his career with the NRA in 2005 as a federal affairs lobbyist, where he was responsible for the states of Georgia, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, New York and New Jersey.

Prior to joining the NRA, Ouimet served as a legislative assistant for Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia.

Ouimet also worked as a senior research analyst at the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Prior to that, in 1999, Ouimet moved to Washington D.C. for a job at the Republican National Committee where he conducted field research for President George Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign.

Ouimet earned his Bachelor of Arts from Kent State University in 1999.

 

NO, Gov. Northam, Your Gun Ban is NOT Constitutional

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam proposes new and unconstitutional legislation. READ MORE

gov northam

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

As Virginia gun owners have shown their displeasure with Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s proposed attack on their rights in city and county meetings across the Old Dominion, Northam has been forced to answer questions about he and gun control financier Michael Bloomberg’s gun ban agenda. In doing so, the governor has proclaimed that he supports the Second Amendment and that his gun ban does not violate the U.S. Constitution. In truth, Northam’s proposed gun ban would violate the Second Amendment as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.

On Monday, December 9, Northam told reporters, “I’m a supporter of the Second Amendment,” adding, “I hear people out there saying that they don’t want law enforcement to enforce unconstitutional laws. Well we’re not going to propose or pass any unconstitutional laws.”

In a Wednesday meeting with reporters, Northam offered a veiled threat to sanctuary jurisdictions that have promised to not enforce unconstitutional gun laws stating, “If we have constitutional laws on the books and law enforcement officers are not enforcing those laws on the books then there are going to be some consequences…” The governor went on to say “Any law that we pass in Richmond and the eight pieces of legislation that I put on the table back in July — they’re constitutional, so that’s not going to be an issue.”

Northam’s allies in Richmond have proposed firearm confiscation legislation that would prohibit the sale and possession of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms like the AR-15. The governor has stated that he intends to push legislation that would ban such firearms but grandfather possession by gun owners who register their firearms with the government.

Banning commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms under either proposal is unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that governments cannot ban these firearms as they are “in common use” for lawful purposes.

Taken alone, Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in Heller is enough to dispose of Northam’s comments. In the decision, Justice Scalia made clear that the types of firearms protected by the Second Amendment include those “in common use at the time” for “lawful purposes like self-defense.”

The firearms industry has estimated that Americans own more than 17.5 million semi-automatic rifles. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the U.S. and therefore indisputably “in common use” and protected by the Second Amendment.

Further, in the 1994 case Staples v. United States, the Supreme Court determined that semi-automatic rifles were common. The case concerned the criminal intent requirement for a conviction for possession of an unregistered machine gun. The subject of the case had argued that he was unaware that the AR-15 in his possession had been modified for automatic fire and was not simply a legal semi-automatic AR-15. In the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas made clear that the mere possession of a converted AR-15 is not enough to infer intent sufficient for conviction, as some firearms are “so commonplace and generally available that we would not consider them to alert individuals to the likelihood of strict regulation.” Justice Thomas went on to write that most categories of guns, including semi-automatic rifles, “traditionally have been widely accepted as lawful possessions.”

All doubt as to whether the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald preclude bans on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms was settled in 2015. That year, Justice Scalia joined Justice Thomas in a dissent from the denial of certiorari in Friedman v. Highland Park, a case concerning a local ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms.

Justice Thomas explained,

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. 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.

Northam’s attempt to portray his Bloomberg-sponsored gun ban as constitutional is an absurd and transparent attempt to forestall the surging Virginia grassroots gun rights movement. Virginia’s gun owners have every reason to take defensive action against Northam and Bloomberg’s unconstitutional gun control agenda.

All Virginia gun owners must organize to fight against unconstitutional Bloomberg-backed gun control in the Old Dominion. Please contact Gov. Northam and let him know you oppose his unconstitutional gun control measures. You can contact Northam using the Governor’s Office contact form below or call his office at 804-786-2211.

 

Texas Gun Control Advocates Deride Actual Firearms Safety Efforts

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Texas Governor Greg Abbot is promoting firearm safety education and equipment to citizens. READ MORE

tx

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Gun control advocates are not concerned with gun safety. This reality was brought home once again by the anti-gun reaction to Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and the firearm industry’s work to ensure Texans have free access to gun locks.

Following a high-profile shooting in Santa Fe, Texas in May 2018, Gov. Abbott released the School and Firearm Safety Action Plan. As part of the plan, the governor called on the state to promote the voluntary use of gun locks.

To carry out this goal, Abbott partnered with the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). Under the plan, Abbott created a $1 million grant from the Governor’s Criminal Justice Division to help fund NSSF’s “Own It? Respect it. Secure it” and “Project ChildSafe” campaigns.

As explained in the governor’s plan,

The NSSF “Own It? Respect it. Secure it” initiative was developed to promote and encourage firearm safety and safe storage. It also supplements ongoing firearm safety and education campaigns such as Project ChildSafe, which has distributed more than 37 million firearm safety kits that includes a cable-style gun lock, lock-installment instructions, and a safety booklet. Project ChildSafe firearm safety education kits are free to law enforcement agencies.

NRA opposes mandatory storage laws. Such restrictions can leave gun owners defenseless at the critical moment that they need a firearm most. Moreover, American gun ownership is diverse. A one-size-fits-all approach to gun storage doesn’t consider the varied needs of law-abiding gun owners.

However, like NSSF, NRA encourages gun owners to take the appropriate steps to voluntarily secure their firearms. Through its Education and Training Division, NRA has taught millions of Americans how to safely own and handle firearms. NRA’s gun safety rules teach firearm owners to store firearms so they are not accessible to unauthorized persons.

According to the Houston Chronicle, the first of the grant money was delivered last month and the first batch of firearm safety kits are now making their way to law enforcement agencies. The full grant is expected to fund 625,000 safety kits.

Gov. Abbott’s efforts to provide more than half-a-million free gun locks was not enough to please so-called “gun safety” group Texas Gun Sense. The Chronicle reported that Texas Gun Sense Executive Director Gyl Switzer expressed doubts about the program. The paper noted,

Switzer said free gun locks “are always a good thing,” but said she would evaluate the project with skepticism “since NSSF is the lobby arm for gun manufacturers.”

Why would a purported “gun safety” group care about how free gun locks are provided? Because their goal isn’t gun safety, it is gun control.

When it comes to gun control advocates, unless a measure encumbers honest gun owners, who they view as their political rivals, then it is not worth doing. Gun control isn’t about gun safety or public safety. Gun control is about controlling law-abiding Americans and indulging ugly political and cultural prejudices.

Gov. Abbott and NSSF should be congratulated for their efforts to promote gun safety while respecting the rights of gun owners.

 

Virginia Gov. Seeks Gun Registration As Down Payment On Gun Confiscation

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Virginia Governor proposes harsh firearm legislation. READ MORE

northam

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) must think that Old Dominion gun owners are stupid… After months of Northam and his Michael Bloomberg-backed General Assembly allies advocating for the enactment of gun confiscation legislation, the governor has told the Virginia Mercury that he will support a gun ban bill that would grandfather currently possessed firearms but require owners to register the newly-prohibited firearms with the government. As astute gun owners know, gun registration facilitates gun confiscation. Northam wants law-abiding gun owners to register their guns with the same people who have already stated that they want to confiscate them.

The evidence is clear: Virginia politicians want to confiscate your firearms.

On June 4, an embattled Gov. Northam announced a special session of the General Assembly in order to enact a raft of gun control legislation. During his remarks, the governor expressly said that “I will propose many of the same ideas that we have proposed before… A ban on assault weapons…”

On July 8, Del. Mark H. Levine (D-45) delivered for Northam and pre-filed gun ban bill HB 4021. The legislation garnered 23 cosponsors. That same day Sen. Adam P Ebbin (D-30) pre-filed the identical SB 4024, which attracted 16 co-sponsors.

The legislation would have banned the importation, manufacture, sale, transfer, and possession of what it termed “assault firearms.” The term was defined to include any semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds or any semi-automatic centerfire rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine and has one of several enumerated features. These features included, a folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip, a thumbhole stock, a second handgrip, a bayonet mount, a silencer, a flash suppressor, a muzzle brake, a muzzle compensator, or a threaded barrel. The legislation also would have banned commonly-owned semi-automatic shotguns and centerfire pistols with any one of several prohibiting features.

As Levine and Ebbin’s legislation prohibited possession of these firearms, the bills, which were drafted at Northam’s request, were firearms confiscation.

On November 18, Sen. Richard L. Saslaw (D-35) pre-filed SB 16 for the 2020 session. This legislation would ban the same types of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms as HB 4021 and SB 4024. Again, as the bill would ban the possession of these firearms, it is gun confiscation.

Northam is misleading the public
Discussing the governor’s proposed ban, Northam Spokeswoman Alena Tarmosky told the Mercury, “In this case, the governor’s assault weapons ban will include a grandfather clause for individuals who already own assault weapons, with the requirement they register their weapons before the end of a designated grace period.”

The website also reported,

The Northam-backed plan mirrors the federal assault weapon ban passed in 1994, which included a grandfather clause for weapons that were legally owned when the legislation was enacted. The federal ban expired in 2004.

It’s not clear whether the Mercury has been misled by Northam’s staff or whether the paper is misinformed on the matter of gun law in general, but this paragraph is directly contradicted by Tarmosky’s statement.

Under the 1994 Clinton assault weapons ban, gun owners could continue to possess and transfer prohibited firearms that were lawfully possessed prior to the ban. In direct contrast to the purported Northam proposal, the federal ban had no firearm registration requirement.

The details of Northam’s gun ban have yet to be released. However, the Clinton ban’s prohibiting criteria were far different than what has been proposed by Northam’s General Assembly allies. Whereas the proposed Virginia legislation would ban commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms with only one offending feature, the “assault weapon” definition under the 1994 federal ban required that a firearm have two prohibiting features. Further, the enumerated prohibited features under the Virginia legislation are far broader and include such innocuous characteristics as thumbhole stocks.

The Mercury item also noted that Northam told reporters, “I’m a supporter of the Second Amendment…” and “we’re not going to propose or pass any unconstitutional laws.” In reality, the gun bans proposed by Northam and his allies are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.

Heller decision author Justice Antonin Scalia made this clear when he signed onto a dissent from denial of certiorari in the case of Friedman v. Highland Park, which concerned a local ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. The dissent, written by Justice Clarence Thomas explained,

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. 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.

Gun registration facilitates confiscation
For undeniable evidence that gun registration facilitates gun confiscation, consider the experience of Virginia gun control financier Michael Bloomberg’s hometown of New York City.

In 1967 New York City passed an ordinance requiring gun owners to register their rifles and shotguns. In 1991 the New York City Council and Mayor David N. Dinkins enacted a bill to prohibit the possession of commonly-owned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

The year after the ban was enacted, a man`s home in Staten Island was raided by the police after he had announced that he would not comply with the city`s ban. He was arrested, and his guns were seized.

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) notified the 2,340 New Yorkers who had been licensed earlier to possess semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that any of those licensed firearms that were covered by the ban had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. The recipients of the notification were directed to send back a sworn statement indicating what had been done with those firearms. NYPD Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters Jeremy Travis, told the Daily News at the time, “for now, the department is taking owners at their word, but spot checks are planned.”

During the mayoral administration of Michael Bloomberg, New York City again used its firearms registry to confiscate guns.

In 2010, the city passed an ordinance prohibiting the possession of rifles or shotguns capable of holding more than five rounds of ammunition. In 2013, the NYPD began sending out letters to registered gun owners alerting them that their firearm was banned. The letters demanded that gun owners either surrender their firearm, permanently modify the firearm to bring it into compliance with the ordinance, or remove it from New York City. Those who chose to modify or move a prohibited firearm were forced to submit documentation to the government that they had done so.

For more proof that registration facilitates confiscation consider New Zealand’s recent gun control measures.

In early 2019, the New Zealand Parliament enacted a ban on the sale and possession of all semi-automatic centerfire rifles and semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns capable of holding more than five rounds of ammunition. To enforce the prohibition, New Zealand required owners to surrender their newly-prohibited firearms.

However, New Zealand does not have a registry of most of the banned rifles and shotguns. This created a policy dilemma for New Zealand’s gun control advocates. Without knowing how many newly-prohibited firearms were in the country or who owned them, there was no effective way for the anti-gun officials to enforce their oppressive edict.

Complaining that the lack of a registry would hamper enforcement, New Zealand Police Association President Chris Cahill told the press in May, “We really have no idea how many of these firearms are out there in New Zealand… Which really points to how bad our firearms legislation has been, that we have let this get out of control.”

Gun Control NZ co-founder Philippa Yasbek admitted that the lack of a registry would make the firearms confiscation plan difficult. Yasbek was quoted by the Washington Post as stating, “These weapons are unlikely to be confiscated by police because they don’t know of their existence… These will become black-market weapons if their owners choose not to comply with the law and become criminals instead.”

Gun owners will not comply
Contrary to what Gov. Northam might think, gun owners are not stupid. Gun owners understand that firearms registration is an integral part of the gun control plan to disarm law-abiding Americans and choose not to comply.

According to New York State Police Data there was massive noncompliance with the SAFE Act’s registration provisions. Out of an estimated 1-1.2 million semi-automatic firearms within the state that were required to be registered under the act, 23,847 people registered a grand total of 44,485 guns. Using the lower estimate of one million semi-automatic firearms, the data shows a compliance rate of 4%.

A 2013 Connecticut law required residents to register commonly-owned semiautomatic firearms, and individual magazines with a capacity greater than 10, by January 1, 2014. Out of an estimated several hundred thousand guns and 2.4 million magazines that were required to be registered, Connecticut gun owners had registered 50,016 firearms and a mere 38,290 magazines.

In 1989, California enacted a law requiring registration of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. According to a February 17, 1992 Los Angeles Times article, in the years following enactment only 46,062 semi-autos were registered. The article went on to note, “The state Department of Justice has estimated there are 200,000 to 300,000. Others have calculated as many as 450,000 to 600,000.” The authorities attempted to bolster the lackluster compliance with a 90-day amnesty period at the start of 1992; this program only netted another 13,470 firearms.

Fight back
All Virginia gun owners must organize to stand and fight against Northam and Bloomberg’s gun registration plan. Virginia’s anti-gun legislators have made it clear that they intend to confiscate guns and any registration scheme would enable their unconstitutional plans.

 

Meet The Hunter Who Stands Up To Those Who Call Her A ‘Murderer’

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

America’s hunters are increasingly under fire by political extremists. Here’s one NRA Member who won’t take that sitting down. READ MORE

brit longoria

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Hunter and philanthropic consultant Britt Longoria has been at the center of an online hate campaign by animal rights extremists who don’t understand where their food comes from, and who show little understanding of what it’s like to actually hunt. The experience caused Longoria, who had previously kept her passion for hunting private, to open up and share her story.

Q: On your blog, you say you’ve been the butt of insults and threats by people who think of hunting as “murder.” Why do you think there are so many misconceptions about hunting? Where do you think that comes from?

Hollywood glamorizes death — and that’s just not reality. There’s a disconnect between what we see in the movies and what actually happens on the ground. Harvesting a life is a very humbling and emotional experience. Today, many people have no idea where the meat in the deli aisle at the super market comes from. They don’t necessarily make that connection that a living creature had to die for that ham sandwich. In order to live, we cause death. Our very survival impacts the world around us. Nothing is impact-free.

Q: What can we, as NRA members, do to change these misconceptions? Is it worth it to engage with the haters? What’s your advice on how best to do that?

Unfortunately, some of those misconceptions are actually our own fault. With social media, it’s all about how we present ourselves and the images we put out there. If we are only presenting what I call “grip-and-grin” trophy photos of our hunts, that doesn’t capture the full experience. We need to present the whole story of the hunt. That means showing what led up to that moment, and what happened next. We need to share how we feel on a hunt. Instead of trying to win over the haters with facts and figures about wildlife conservation and our economic impact, we really need to engage the haters on an emotional level. Non-hunters may not necessarily want to go hunting, but it helps them understand us as individuals. No one can argue with you when you are sharing your emotions with them. And if they’re not arguing, they are listening. And if they’re listening, perhaps they will learn something.

Q: Not long ago, you took a group of young boys out for their first bird hunt. You said it was interesting to hear them talk casually about the death and violence they saw on their favorite TV shows, and then to see their reaction when they saw it in real life and hunted their first bird. Can you tell us about that experience?

As I drove the vehicle, I listened to the boys, ages 9-11, behind me talking about one of their favorite TV shows, “The Walking Dead.” I was shocked by the level of violence they were describing in the show and how casually they were talking about it. But as soon as one of the boys shot a bird and the dog retrieved it, the boys were suddenly grossed out by the sight of the dog saliva and blood on the bird. None of them wanted to touch it. I quickly gutted the bird and pulled out the breast and showed them the meat. In that moment they realized, perhaps for the first time, where their chicken nuggets come from. It was a real eye-opening process for them to see how quickly something can go from being alive to a food source. They learned it wasn’t gross or icky, but natural. By the end of the afternoon, they were handling the birds and understanding the anatomy and different feathers.

Q: You’ve been blasted online for posting pictures of you smiling after a successful hunt. What’s happening in those pictures? What kind of emotions are you feeling that the snapshot doesn’t convey?

Snapshots do not convey the depth of the hunting experience, and the full range of emotions behind the intentional harvesting of a life in the wild. As hunters, we need to do a better job of telling our stories on social media. Behind every trophy picture is a roller coaster of emotions: we feel humbled, relieved, sad, and thankful. And above all, there is deep gratitude for the animal who gave its life.

 

NRA-Supported Case Heard by Supreme Court

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

“This case is just one more example of how the NRA fights every day, as it always has, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans.”

supreme court

The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) said last week’s Supreme Court hearing on a New York City gun control law could ultimately strengthen the ability of law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights by making it harder for governments to impose gun control schemes.

The NRA-supported case, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) v. the City of New York, centers on New York City’s handgun “premises” license that restricts gun owners from transporting a handgun to a range or other residence outside city limits. After the NRA’s New York affiliate, the NYSRPA, challenged that law, and the Supreme Court took up the case, the City amended its regulation in an attempt to moot the case and prevent the high court from hearing it.

“It’s rare that SCOTUS takes on a Second Amendment case. It is perhaps unprecedented when a defendant, in this case New York City, tries to win by admitting they passed an unconstitutional law and revoking it in a last-ditch effort to stop the Court from hearing the case,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director, NRA-ILA. “Will other states facing similar NRA-supported challenges “throw in the towel” at the 11th hour as Justice Sotomayor says New York did in this case?

“This case is just one more example of how the NRA fights every day, as it always has, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans.”

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on this case before the end of June 2020.

 

Bloomberg-Bought Virginia Legislators Introduce Confiscatory Gun Ban

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

New Bloomberg-based legislation poses serious threat to Virginia gun owners. READ MORE

bloomberg

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Michael Bloomberg’s bought and paid for Virginia legislators have wasted no time introducing legislation that would make the Old Dominion’s gun laws worse than those of the billionaire’s home state of New York.

SB 16, introduced by Sen. Richard L. Saslaw, would create a total ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, like the AR-15. Even worse, the ban would even extend to common firearm parts. The restrictions included in the proposed legislation does not grandfather current owners. The legislation is clearly designed to be firearms confiscation, as current owners would be forced to dispossess themselves of their property or face a felony conviction.

Saslaw’s legislation provides,

It is unlawful for any person to import, sell, transfer, manufacture, purchase, possess, or transport an assault firearm.

Otherwise law-abiding gun owners found in possession of an “assault firearm,” even one they purchased prior to the ban, could be convicted of a Class 6 felony. A Class 6 felony is punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment.

The legislation lays out several criteria by which a firearm would be defined as an “assault firearm.” This includes,

A semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a fixed magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.
A semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine that has one of the following characteristics:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the rifle; (iii) a thumbhole stock; (iv) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (v) a bayonet mount; (vi) a grenade launcher; (vii) a flare launcher; (viii) a silencer; (ix) a flash suppressor; (x) a muzzle brake; (xi) a muzzle compensator; (xii) a threaded barrel… or (xiii) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (xii)

A semi-automatic centerfire pistol with a fixed magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds.
A semi-automatic centerfire pistol with a detachable magazine that has one of the following characteristics:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock; (ii) a thumbhole stock; (iii) a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand; (iv) the capacity to accept a magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; (v) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the pistol with the non-trigger hand without being burned; (vi) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; (vii) a threaded barrel… or (viii) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (vii);

A shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
A semi-automatic shotgun with one of the following characteristics:
(i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a thumbhole stock, (iii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the shotgun, (iv) the ability to accept a detachable magazine, (v) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of seven rounds, or (vi) any characteristic of like kind as enumerated in clauses (i) through (v).

With this definition, SB 16 would outlaw America’s most popular rifle, the AR-15, along with countless other rifles, pistols, and shotguns that Virginians use for hunting, target shooting, and self-defense.

A knowledgeable firearms owner will take a look at the ridiculous definition and realize that such ham-handed legislation must be born out of petty vindictiveness or a complete ignorance of firearm technology, as there is no logical public safety rationale.

For example, the legislation is so broad that it would ban hunting guns like the Mossberg 935 Turkey shotgun for its “pistol grip.”

Banned shotgun
Banned!

The ban would prohibit the possession of guns like this Model SP-10 Magnum Thumbhole Camo due to its thumbhole stock.

banned shotgun
Banned!

The ban would also capture guns such as this version of the Browning BAR Mark II Safari hunting rifle, as it has a detachable box magazine and a muzzle brake.

banned rifle
Banned!

Moreover, the “any characteristic of like kind” language that appears after each list of prohibited features introduces an unacceptable vagueness into the definition of what does or does not constitute an “assault firearm.” Law-abiding gun owners would be forced to prophesy just how a court might interpret those unclear provisions.

As bad and senseless as the prohibition on certain firearms is, the proposed ban on firearm parts truly shows how Michael Bloomberg is cashing in on his political investment.

The legislation provides,

“Assault firearm” includes any part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert, modify, or otherwise alter a firearm into an assault firearm, or any combination of parts that may be readily assembled into an assault firearm.

This passage would appear to make all of the firearm parts listed under the various feature tests in and of themselves “assault firearms” and therefore prohibited. As the individual part is treated as an “assault firearm,” possession of such a part would be punishable in the same manner as a prohibited firearm, as a Class 6 felony.

Many firearms are modular. For instance, the same muzzle brake or flash suppressor could be used to turn a semi-automatic firearm into an “assault firearm” under the bill’s definition, or it could be used by a hunter or precision rifle shooter on their bolt-action rifle.

In recent years the popularity of the AR-15 platform has led to the adoption of AR-15 parts in other types of firearms. An example of this trend is the Ruger Precision Rimfire rifle. The firearm is a bolt-action rimfire rifle that accepts an AR-15 pistol grip. As the pistol grip part is a prohibited feature on a semi-automatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and is designed for use on a prohibited AR-15, the mere grip itself could be banned under this legislation.

ruger rimfire
Banned!

SB 16 also bans the importation, sale, and transfer of standard capacity firearm magazines that are designed to hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Many handguns commonly-owned by law-abiding citizens for concealed carry come standard with magazines that would be banned. Otherwise law-abiding gun owners who violate the magazine provision could be found guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A Class 1 misdemeanor is punishable by up to a year in jail.

All Virginia gun owners must organize to fight against Bloomberg-backed gun confiscation in the Old Dominion. In the coming days NRA will keep gun owners apprised of the latest developments in Richmond and the actions necessary to defend the right to keep and bear arms. In the meantime, please sign up to volunteer to help defeat this and other terrible legislation.

 

No Protection for the Law that Protects the Firearm Industry: Supreme Court Passes on PLCAA Case

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

The Second Amendment and laws designed to protect the right to keep and bear arms are meaningless if they are not adequately enforced in court. READ MORE

PLCAA

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

A law designed to protect the firearm industry from frivolous litigation is now in jeopardy thanks to inaction by the U.S. Supreme Court, which earlier this month passed on a petition to review a case creating a new exception to the law’s protection. The case before the Supreme Court was Remington Arms v. Soto.

It’s hard to imagine a more ridiculous or implausible legal theory: a gunmaker intentionally marketed its products to criminals through macho ad copy, patriotic images, and product placement in video games, thus causing the criminal to carry out a mass attack.

It’s particularly ludicrous when the murderer himself stole rather than bought the gun (after killing the person who actually bought it) with no evidence the murderer saw any of the gunmaker’s ads.

In a sane world, this lawsuit would have been recognized as an abuse of the legal system, a cynical exploitation of tragedy for political and ideological ends. That world used to exist under a law called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The PLCAA was enacted by Congress in 2005 with broad bipartisan support for the very purpose of stopping coordinated lawsuits seeking to hold the firearm industry liable for the acts of criminals who used guns to commit their offenses. Few of the cases ever had any chance of success in court, but that didn’t matter. Bankrupting the companies by forcing them to defend the suits, or to accept settlements that required “voluntary” adoption of punitive gun control measures, was the real agenda.

There is certainly nothing “unusual” or “extraordinary” about a legal rule that says a business is not responsible for the wrongful acts of a third party that misuses its products, absent some special connection to the offender or the victim. The victim of an accident caused by a drunk driver cannot ordinarily sue the car manufacturer or dealer, for example.

What was unusual was the determination of gun control advocates to press these meritless claims in court, which resulted in Congress making clear with the PLCAA that courts could not create especially unfavorable rules around the manufacturing and selling of guns. The entire point of the law was to ensure activist litigants and courts could not sue the U.S. firearms industry out of business.

As of Nov. 8, however, the sane world of the PLCAA came dangerously closer to an end. That was the day the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court that denied a firearm manufacturer the PLCAA’s protection because, so the argument went, the company knowingly engaged in illegal advertising.

That case will now proceed in a Connecticut court. And while even gun control advocates admit the plaintiff’s claim might not prevail at trial (if the case gets to trial at all), it will cost the defendants a king’s ransom to continue fighting the case.

It’s true the PLCAA was never intended to protect businesses that knowingly flaunt laws governing the sale or marketing of firearms. Congress created narrow exceptions for when the manufacturer or seller violated specific types of gun control laws, sold a firearm to a person the seller knew couldn’t be safely trusted with it, sold a defective product, or violated a contract or warranty relating to the purchase.

These exceptions also included knowingly violating a state or federal statute “applicable to the sale or marketing of the [firearm or ammunition],” such as making or facilitating false statements in required recordkeeping or disposing of a firearm or ammunition to someone legally prohibited from having it. Both examples relate to provisions in the federal Gun Control Act, indicating that gun-specific laws are what Congress intended the exception to cover.

Yet the plaintiffs in the Remington Arms case sought to get around the PLCAA by claiming that violation of any state or federal statute that could conceivably be applied to the sale or marketing of a firearm should count, whether or not that statute was enacted with firearms or ammunition in mind.

Because the sale of the firearm to the original purchaser in the case complied with all applicable state and federal regulations on firearm sales, the plaintiffs had to stretch the existing bounds of the law to find a statute they could claim was violated. They finally settled on the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), which prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” The plaintiffs argued that a similar federal law has been interpreted to include ““immoral, unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous” advertising.

They then went on to argue that Connecticut law thus effectively prohibits the sorts of advertisements the defendants used to promote their firearms, because those ads were specifically designed to appeal to and incite deranged individuals like the criminal who killed the victims they represent.

In other words, the plaintiffs are essentially claiming that but for the defendants’ supposedly illegal ads, the victims would still be alive.

Even the Connecticut Supreme Court recognized proving that claim may prove to be impossible. But by allowing the case to proceed, the court also empowered the plaintiffs to force the defendants to turn over copious amounts of documents and information about their marketing and advertising strategies. The plaintiffs hope this fishing expedition will turn up material that, if it doesn’t lead to victory in the case, could at least be used to embarrass and shame the defendants in the court of public opinion.

Why the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene when the lawsuit falls squarely into the type of abusive litigation that Congress sought to prevent is unknown. No written opinions on the order were issued by any member of the high court.

The case, however, could set a very ominous precedent, as states across the country have laws similar to CUTPA, and the question of what a company intended with an image or phrase in advertising is an inherently subjective determination.

What is clear, however, is that the Second Amendment and laws designed to protect the right to keep and bear arms are meaningless if they are not adequately enforced in court. That did not happen here, and future anti-gun opportunists may now have roadmap to navigate around the PLCAA.