Category Archives: Politics

If it concerns your Second Amendment, or other policy driven content, you’ll be able to find it in our politics section

The National Rifle Association Sues New York!

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

nra sues cuomo

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oliver North Named New President Of The NRA

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

oliver north

SOURCE: The Washington Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

coworkers

David Codrea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Springfield Armory Severs Ties With Dick’s

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

News from Geneseo: no more Springfield Armory for Dick’s Sporting Goods. Here’s why…

springfield armory logo

SOURCE: Springfield Armory

Springfield Armory is severing ties with Dick’s Sporting Goods and its subsidiary, Field & Stream, in response to their hiring a group for anti-Second Amendment lobbying. This latest action follows Dick’s Sporting Goods’ decision to remove and destroy all modern sporting rifles (MSR) from their inventory. In addition, they have denied Second Amendment rights to Americans under the age of 21. We at Springfield Armory believe that all law abiding American citizens of adult age are guaranteed this sacred right under our Constitution. It is clear where Dick’s Sporting Goods and its subsidiary, Field & Stream, stand on the Second Amendment, and we want to be clear about our message in response. Their position runs counter to what we stand for as a company. At Springfield Armory, we believe in the right and principles fought for and secured by American patriots and our founding forefathers, without question. We will not accept Dick’s Sporting Goods’ continued attempts to deny Second Amendment freedoms to our fellow Americans.

NEWS: Dick’s Living Up To Its Name!

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Dick’s Sporting Goods Solidifies Anti-Gun Reputation. Check this LINK HERE!

NRA Files Suit Challenging Florida Gun Control Law

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

NRA files lawsuit to fight Florida ban on firearms purchases by young adults. READ MORE

florida state capital

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

The National Rifle Association announced that it has filed a lawsuit challenging the State of Florida’s newly-enacted ban on the purchase of firearms by young adults between the ages of 18-21.

Florida’s ban is an affront to the Second Amendment, as it totally eviscerates the right of law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 21 to keep and bear arms. The ban is particularly offensive with respect to young women, as women between the ages of 18 and 21 are much less likely to engage in violent crime than older members of the general population who are unaffected by the ban. Despite this fact, the State of Florida has enacted a sweeping law banning all young adults between the ages of 18 and 21 from purchasing any firearm from any source. Chris Cox, the Executive Director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, stated, “Swift action is needed to prevent young adults in Florida from being treated as second-class citizens when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.

We are confident that the courts will vindicate our view that Florida’s ban is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment.” The case is National Rifle Association of America, Inc. v. Bondi, and it has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida.

 

BIG NEWS: Hornady Refuses To Sell Ammo To NY Agencies After Cuomo Gun Initiative

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Ammunition giant Hornady is cutting off government buyers in New York over an order by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo. READ MORE

hornady plant

SOURCE: various sources

Steve Hornady, the company’s president of manufacturing, announced on social media last Friday that the ammo maker will halt sales of their products to state government or agencies in New York. The move came after an order directed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo earlier last month that cautioned banks, lenders, and insurance companies against involvement with the National Rifle Association and similar organizations. Strongly criticizing Cuomo’s move as one of the most “despicable acts ever perpetrated by any state,” Hornady closed the doors to New York.

“While it may not make a difference to New York, Hornady will not knowingly allow our ammunition to be sold to the Government of the State of New York or any New York agencies,” Hornady said. “Their actions are a blatant and disgusting abuse of office and we won’t be associated with a government that acts like that.”

The guidance issued by Cuomo came from the state’s Department of Financial Services on April 19 in the form of official letters to all DFS-regulated insurers and banks in the state. In that communication, Financial Services Superintendent Maria Vullo urged financial institutions to examine their relationships with the NRA and organizations that promote guns to take “prompt actions to manage these risks” when it came to protecting their corporate reputations. Pointing to the public backlash against gun rights groups and firearm companies in the wake of high-profile incidents that have dominated the news, Vullo encouraged those regulated by her agency that, “Corporations are demonstrating that business can lead the way and bring about the kind of positive social change needed to minimize the chance that we will witness more of these senseless tragedies.”

In recent weeks, big-name lenders such as Citi and Bank of America have adopted new policies that could see them cut ties with partnering businesses unwilling to adopt new policies for selling firearms or manufacturing some types of semi-automatic guns, which, in turn, has brought calls for more regulatory oversight of the institutions with respect to government contracts.

Hornady is one of the premier ammunition suppliers to law enforcement in the country. The company recently was awarded a $19 million contract to provide a new generation of 9mm duty rounds to the FBI.

 

Alabama Rated Top State For The Gun Industry, Rhode Island The Worst

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Culture, laws, and politics differences now strongly favor the southern states to lead the way in attracting members of the firearms industry. READ WHY…

gun industry

SOURCE: FOX NEWS by Keith Koffler

Red Alabama is the best state for the firearms industry when it comes to factors such as jobs and gun culture, while blue Rhode Island is the worst, according to the jobs website Zippia.

The rankings reflect the sharp regional and political divide in the country on guns.

“A general rule of thumb emerged from the data — head south if you are looking to get one of as many as 141,500 jobs generated by companies that make, distribute, and sell guns,” the website said. The advice to head south also pertained to another 159,623 jobs in ancillary industries such as gun component suppliers.

But another “rule of thumb” is also apparent: If you want a job in the gun industry, head into Trump country. Each of the study’s top ten states — Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Alaska, Missouri, and Louisiana — went for President Trump in the 2016 presidential election, most of them decisively. Of the ten worst states for the industry — Rhode Island, New Jersey, Vermont, Washington, New York Wisconsin, North Dakota, Maine, Nebraska, and Massachusetts — Hillary Clinton won seven.

“There’s a very strong correlation between people being conservative or liberal and what their views are on guns,” said Dr. John R. Lott Jr., one of the nation’s leading experts on guns and crime.

All but one of the top ten states for gun manufacturers also were ranked in the top half of the libertarian CATO Institute’s “Freedom in the States” list, which surveys state fiscal and regulatory policies and issues related to personal freedom. A common refrain among gun rights supporters is that you need the Second Amendment to protect the First.

The Zippia study reflected deeper societal trends because it didn’t only look at the number of firearms jobs and manufacturers in a state, although these were the most important measures. It also analyzed whether there was a “positive” environment for gun producers as determined by measures like the number of state laws related to guns and the gun “culture” of a state – including the percentage of people who own firearms.

The differences between states become clear when comparing two of the largest, Florida, which ranked sixth-best on the list, and fifth-worst New York. Florida, for its population of 21 million, had just 21 gun laws on the books as of 2017, according to the study, although it enacted a few new regulations this year in response to the school shootings in Parkland, Florida.

New York, for its nearly 20 million residents, had 75 state gun laws.

Despite their similar populations, Florida in 2017 had 7,157 people working directly in the firearms industry, while only 4,156 people were employed by the industry in New York, according to a report by the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Alabama, the top state for the firearms industry, had just ten gun laws on the books in 2017 and 3,222 people working in the firearms industry, just under a thousand less than New York, which is far more populous.

One surprising finding: California, at #14 on the industry-friendly list, ranked just ahead of #16 Texas, where many residents pride themselves on the state’s gun culture.

“While California has higher regulations on ownership and lower gun ownership rates, it is actually very friendly to manufacturers both in terms of jobs per capita, total jobs, and industry taxes,” said Zippa’s Drew Walters.

Perhaps that will change. Lott noted that “inertia” may come to play in some of the Zippa’s rankings, since gun businesses may be loath to pick up and absorb the costs of moving even after the environment worsens for them. “A state may have a number of jobs related to the gun industry, but it may be because they made investments 100 years ago, or 50 years ago,” Lott said. “Things may have to get pretty bad before it pays for them to give up all that investment.”

Liberal, government regulation-heavy California is hardly the Wild West anymore. In 1993, California had just 57 gun laws on the books, according to Zippa. By 2017, it had 106. Over the same period, Texas went from 12 gun laws to 18.

Keith Koffler is the editor of the website White House Dossier.

President Trump Reassures Gun Owners: THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED!

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

In the wake of outrageous statements by anti-gun radicals like former Justice John Paul Steven, here’s President Trump on the issue. READ MORE

trump 2a tweet

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

In response to statements last week by Former Justice Stevens, President Trump’s tweet read: THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED! As much as Democrats would like to see this happen, and despite the recent words of former Supreme Court Justice Stevens, NO WAY.

Trump also called for the election of more supporters to ensure that the Supreme Court does not lose its pro-Second Amendment majority. Right now the court has 4 members who oppose the right to Keep and Bear arms.

Unsurprisingly, radical media outlets such as Rolling Stone joined the chorus calling for repeal. The Washington Post reported that their polling shows that 20% of the American people also support repeal.

Trump’s strong support for our fundamental rights stands in stark contrast to these calls to repeal the Second Amendment. But this newfound openness is useful information for gun owners. For decades anti-gun leaders have claimed that they only want “common sense” gun regulations. Stevens and others expose the truth that the anti-gun movement really wants to erase our rights and ban all or almost all guns.

NRA appreciates the outspoken support of President Trump for our Second Amendment freedoms. With the strong support of our members and all gun owners, NRA will always stand with the President in opposition to these efforts.

Dissenting Justice in the Heller Case Now Argues for Repeal of the Second Amendment

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens claims that the concerns which underlie the 2nd amendment are a “relic of the 18th century” and that it should be repealed in its entirety. READ IT ALL

supreme court building

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

In 2008, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens was on the losing side of District of. Columbia v. Heller, the landmark Supreme Court case that clearly recognized the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms independent of service in an organized militia. Stevens wrote a lengthy dissent, insisting that the framers of the amendment showed not “the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.” Years later, Stevens wrote a book which argued in favor of amending the Second Amendment to reverse the Heller decision and give his side the win. Recently, however, Stevens dropped the pretense of believing the Second Amendment has any value at all, arguing in a New York Times editorial that the concerns which underlie the amendment are a “relic of the 18th century” and that it should be repealed in its entirety.

Stevens insisted that the “civic engagement” of “schoolchildren” participating in recent antigun demonstrations “demand[s] our respect.” Yet his “respect” for the protestors ironically does not extend to trusting their ability to exercise their own fundamental rights, as he immediately turned to endorsing several ambitious gun control proposals, including increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years. He also signaled his support for “prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons” and “establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms.” Stevens should perhaps be credited with being more intellectually honest and transparent than he has been in the past when he merely advocated for a narrow reading of the Second Amendment. Now he’s willing to admit he simply wants the amendment — and the right to individual and corporate defense that it serves — to go away altogether.

Stevens, however, had some further advice for the young protestors, encouraging them to “seek more effective and more lasting reform” by demanding “a repeal of the Second Amendment.” It would, he noted, “move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform.”

What’s particularly notable about Stevens’s argument is how dismissive he remains about the Second Amendment’s existing individual right, viewing it as no bar to banning all modern firearms and as allowing for broad classes of Americans to be categorically banned from acquiring any firearm at all.

But even that state of affairs is intolerable to him, because it still allows for the thought crime of believing the right to keep and bear arms has enduring value or any sort of instrumental role in limiting government authority. Worse still, the current status of the Second Amendment empowers the NRA in its advocacy and messaging efforts.

What Steven wants, in other words, is to completely shut down — not just the substance of the right to keep and bear arms — but the very legitimacy of defending it as an American value

As is often the case when gun control advocates feel emboldened, one of their more oblivious and politically inept standard bearers has embarrassed the whole movement by being too forthcoming about an “objective” still roundly rejected by a large majority of Americans. After the Stevens editorial appeared, the Washington Post quickly reported on a February poll in which 60% of Americans opposed repealing the Second Amendment, a rate three times higher than for support of a repeal. Such a move is hardly the “simple” solution that Stevens portrays it to be. As NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox said in response to Stevens’s comments: “The men and women of the National Rifle Association, along with the majority of the American people and the Supreme Court, believe in the Second Amendment right to self-protection and we will unapologetically continue to fight to protect this fundamental freedom.”

Indeed, within hours of the New York Times publishing the Stevens editorial, an article appeared in the Washington Post characterizing Stevens’s comments as “supremely unhelpfull” and proving that the Post’s writers aren’t wrong about everything. “In one fell swoop,” the article laments, Stevens has lent credence to the talking point that the left really just wants to get rid of gun ownership and reasserted the need for gun-rights supporters to prevent his ilk from ever being appointed again (with the most obvious answer being: Vote Republican).”

We couldn’t have said it better ourselves.

Stories abound about some of the more overreaching and extreme views that were expressed during the antigun March in Washington. Yet while youthful calls for a “gun free world” can be chalked up to innocent idealism, no one can claim that a man who sat on the U.S. Supreme Court during the heyday of the handgun ban era and personally participated in the Heller case did not speak knowingly and deliberately. He was, in fact, simply expressing the prevailing opinion of the law’s liberal elite, however unartfully.

Stevens should perhaps be credited with being more intellectually honest and transparent than he has been in the past when he merely advocated for a narrow reading of the Second Amendment. Now he’s willing to admit he simply wants the amendment — and the right to individual and corporate defense that it serves — to go away altogether.

He’s also right that this, ultimately, is the “objective” behind the long-standing movement that is lately receiving a boost from some well-meaning and earnest young activists.

And whether gun owners hear it from a 17-year-old high school student or a 97-year-old retired Supreme Court Justice, they’d do well to listen carefully. Today’s antigun advocacy merely foreshadows tomorrow’s abolition of your rights.

That’s why the NRA will not yield real rights for symbolic measures that offer no public safety benefits. As NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox said in response to Stevens’s comments: “The men and women of the National Rifle Association, along with the majority of the American people and the Supreme Court, believe in the Second Amendment right to self-protection and we will unapologetically continue to fight to protect this fundamental freedom.”