Tag Archives: gun control

Strong Firearms Preemption Laws are More Important Than Ever

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Montana and Pennsylvania show just how much state firearms preemption statutes are an essential protection for gun owners. READ MORE

gun rights

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

In recent weeks, gun owners have been given two prime examples of just how important strong firearms preemption laws are to the vibrant exercise of Second Amendment rights. On October 22, the Montana Supreme Court struck down a Missoula ordinance that purported to restrict city residents’ ability to transfer firearms. On October 29, Allegheny County Common Pleas Senior Judge Joseph M. James struck down a raft of Pittsburgh ordinances that purported to regulate the use of firearms in public places within the city and provide for the confiscation of firearms without due process. In both instances the tribunals pointed to the state firearms preemption statute as precluding the locality’s anti-gun efforts.

Today, almost all states have a firearms preemption law that prohibits localities from regulating firearms in a manner more stringent than state law. These laws are vital as they prevent localities from enacting an incomprehensible patchwork of local ordinances. Without these measures unsuspecting gun owners would be forced to forego the exercise of their Second Amendment rights or risk running afoul of convoluted and potentially inaccessible local rules.

A look back at a 1970s edition of ATF’s State Laws and Local Ordinances reveals a baffling mishmash of local ordinances aimed at all manner of firearms related conduct. Prior to the enactment of preemption statutes there were city waiting periods, county gun seller licensing and gun registration schemes, and local permits to purchase regimes.

With prodding from moneyed interests, localities have become increasingly brazen in defying state preemption statutes.

The Missoula case concerned City Ordinance 3581. Passed in 2016, the ordinance criminalized the private transfer of firearms in the city. The ordinance required almost all transfers to take place pursuant to a National Instant Criminal Background Check System check. The city passed the ordinance in defiance of Montana’s strong state firearms preemption statute.

The Montana Code Annotated § 45-8-351 provides,

A county, city, town, consolidated local government, or other local government unit may not prohibit, register, tax, license, or regulate the purchase, sale or other transfer (including delay in purchase, sale, or other transfer), ownership, possession, transportation, use, or unconcealed carrying of any weapon, including a rifle, shotgun, handgun, or concealed handgun.

The language is straightforward and explicitly prohibited the locality from regulating “the purchase, sale or other transfer” of firearms. Illustrating the obvious illegality of Missoula’s ordinance, the Montana Supreme Court ruled 5-0 against the city.

The Pittsburgh case concerned a trio of ordinances passed in 2018. Pittsburgh Mayor William Peduto called on the city to enact a total ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, a total ban on standard capacity magazines, and the development of a procedure to confiscate an individual’s firearms without due process of law. Further, Peduto called on municipalities throughout the country to ignore state statutes enacted by their residents’ elected representatives.

In the end, Peduto and his cohorts on the city council enacted narrower, but still impermissible, versions of the initial gun and magazine ban proposals and the confiscation measure.

Pennsylvania’s firearms preemption statute, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6120, provides,

No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.

Like Montana’s statute, the language clearly prohibited Pittsburgh’s conduct. Moreover, in the Keystone State the matter of Pittsburgh’s power to regulate firearms had already been decided in the courts.

In the 1996 case Ortiz v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania settled the question as to whether Pittsburgh and Philadelphia could restrict commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms. In finding that they could not, the court stated,

Because the ownership of firearms is constitutionally protected, its regulation is a matter of statewide concern. The constitution does not provide that the right to bear arms shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth except Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, where it may be abridged at will, but that it shall not be questioned in any part of the commonwealth. Thus, regulation of firearms is a matter of concern in all of Pennsylvania, not merely in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and the General Assembly, not city councils, is the proper forum for the imposition of such regulation.

In ruling against the city’s most recent ordinances, Judge James noted that “the City has expended a large amount of energy attempting to categorize the restricted behavior in such a way that it is not expressly prohibited” by the state preemption statute. Continuing, James explained, “Despite the city’s efforts…. they are not able to avoid the obvious intent of the Legislature to preempt this entire field.”

Note Judge James’ use of the word “obvious.” Both the Montana and Pennsylvania statutes contain clear language that obviously barred the cities’ behavior. Even so, city officials usurped the authority to regulate firearms and wasted untold taxpayer resources in order to persecute a disfavored subset of law-abiding citizens.

Often more ideologically homogenous than larger political units, local governments have repeatedly shown a willingness to attack their gun owning constituents rather than practice the politics of pluralism. The larger political unit of a state can temper such virulent intolerance and provide a much-needed check on the radical impulses of local politicians.

Such blatant defiance of state law and profligacy with taxpayer dollars should have state legislatures looking for ways to strengthen existing state firearms preemption statutes. This can be achieved by providing a clear avenue for which a variety of interested parties, such as civil rights organizations like the NRA, can bring suit to enjoin improper laws. Moreover, state preemption statutes can be crafted in a manner that provides a prevailing plaintiff with attorneys’ fees and liquidated damages.

As the cases in Montana and Pennsylvania show, state firearms preemption statutes are an essential protection for gun owners. However, gun owners should not be forced to constantly vindicate their rights through the courts. State legislators should work to craft state preemption laws that prevent even the most recalcitrant localities from enacting illegal ordinances.

Photo Courtesy of Jeremy Tremp

 

Wisconsin: Gov. Evers Calls for Firearm Confiscation & Criminalizing Private Transfers

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

New Wisconsin firearms legislation reveals “Democrats’ real agenda” — total government control over all firearms and firearm owners. READ MORE

Wisconsin gun laws

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

On September 19th, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers, Attorney General Josh Kaul, Representative Melissa Sargent (D-48), and Senator Lena Taylor (D-4) held a press conference calling on the Legislature to violate the Second Amendment by: 1) allowing confiscation of firearms without due process; and 2) criminalizing private transfers. If the Legislature does not quickly comply with these demands, Gov. Evers threatened to push for a special session. Please urge your state legislators to oppose Gov. Evers’ threats against Wisconsin’s law-abiding citizens and our Second Amendment rights.

Fortunately, Second Amendment defenders like Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos were courageous enough to highlight the Governor’s true intentions, saying “today in a partial answer to a reporter’s question Governor Evers revealed Democrats’ real agenda: taking away firearms that are lawfully owned, which is unacceptable. Wisconsin laws already say if you’re a felon, you lose your right to own a gun. With Governor Evers considering confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens, it shows just how radical Democrats have become.”

As NRA members know, most so-called “Extreme Risk Protection Order” laws—the kind of scheme that Gov. Evers would like to impose—seek to confiscate firearms while suspending your Second Amendment rights. This is why lawful gun owners who would otherwise defend themselves are often excluded from the very hearings where the gun-grab is ordered. If Gov. Evers gets his way, every Wisconsin citizen would be vulnerable to such orders, which do not rest upon a criminal conviction or adjudication of dangerously mental illness. Under Gov. Evers’ approach, your Second Amendment rights would be usurped by uncorroborated third party allegations.

Similar flaws permeate the Governor’s effort to criminalize private transfers. Contrary to the Second Amendment, the Governor wants to force law-abiding citizens to obtain the government’s permission, at their own expense, before transferring firearms; this even includes any gifts or trades between family members and close friends. Unbelievable.

Laws that insert the government between the Second Amendment and lawful transactions are fundamentally illogical and inconsistent with our U.S. Constitution. Existing studies of these laws—even when conducted by anti-gun researchers—confirm that such laws are ineffective at reducing homicides or suicides. Criminals who are already prohibited from possessing firearms and who already illegally obtain firearms through unlawful methods (such as theft or straw purchase) will not be deterred by one more law. And don’t be fooled: because such schemes are ultimately unenforceable without a firearm registry, they are the precursor to the registry itself.

Your action is needed. Please take a brief moment to contact your state legislators—stand up for the law-abiding citizens of this State, and protect our Second Amendment rights by refusing the politicians’ efforts to violate fundamental due process rights and criminalize private firearm transfers.

WISCONSIN, PRIVATE TRANSFERS, DUE PROCESS, CONFISCATION, gun control

NRA Statement on 2019 Election Results

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

NRA ILA releases statement overview of controversial Bloomberg elections — common sense trumps money. READ MORE

2020 elections

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

The National Rifle Association released the following statement on the 2019 election results:

“As if Gov. Northam’s legacy of ineptitude wasn’t enough, Virginians are about to experience life under a distant tycoon’s thumb. Candidates who proudly accepted Bloomberg’s cash — and every voter they misled — will soon realize the cost of being beholden to a Manhattan billionaire who despises Virginians’ right to self-defense. Fortunately, many NRA-backed candidates in Virginia, New Jersey, Kentucky and Mississippi prevailed over their Bloomberg-funded opponents. As the battle continues, so does the NRA’s defense of the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.”

MSNBC’s Las Vegas Anti-Gun Rally

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Here’s a recap of MSNBC, Giffords, and March for Our Lives political “gun safety forum.” READ MORE

msnbc

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

On October 2, anti-gun news outlet MSNBC, along with their partner organizations Giffords and March for Our Lives, hosted nine Democrat candidates for President for what was billed as a “Gun Safety Forum.” Most of the time was spent by candidates and anti-gun activists railing against guns, NRA, and occasionally, President Donald Trump.

As one can imagine, there really wasn’t much new discussed, as candidates continued to try to convince Democrat voters that each is the most anti-gun choice. At times, it seemed like a fight might break out over who had the most outrageous scheme to disarm law-abiding Americans.

Everyone seemed to agree on “universal” background checks, “red flag” laws, and that there is an “epidemic” of gun violence in our country. But as each candidate took the stage for their individual allotted time, most tried to separate themselves from the others.

South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, one of the higher polling lower tier candidates, started things off, trying to draw a connection between passing new gun laws and combatting “white nationalism.”

Buttigieg also promoted gun licensing, as well as “red flag” laws and “universal” background checks. Attacking NRA, he made the patently false allegation that our association represents the interests of gun manufacturers, rather than our 5 million dues-paying members.

Mayor Buttigieg also talked about banning semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, making the confusing statement that such things should not be sold “anywhere near an American school or neighborhood.” He seemed to clarify later that he was not talking about limiting where gun stores could operate, but meant he wanted to ban these popular rifles.

While trying to sell the constitutionality of banning some of the most commonly owned firearms in America, he made two bizarre comparisons. First, he said that people can own slingshots, but not nuclear weapons, followed by stating that water balloons are legal, but predator drones are not. It’s hard to imagine a more ridiculous comparison than one between children’s toys and actual weapons of war while discussing the Second Amendment.

His support of banning AR-15s, however, did not, at this time, include support for the type of confiscation scheme that has been promoted by one of the other candidates. More on that later.

Former HUD Secretary and San Antonio Mayor Julián Castro was next. He promoted increasing the tax on ammunition to further drive up its cost and supported the banning of so-called “assault weapons,” but fell short of calling for their confiscation. Instead, he promoted a voluntary “buy-back” scheme, followed by registering those not turned in and tracking their future transfer, similar to the way fully-automatic firearms are currently regulated. While he did not mention fully incorporating them into the National Firearms Act (NFA) protocols, that seemed to be where he was heading.

Next was New Jersey Senator Cory Booker. He stated support for banning and confiscating semi-automatic firearms, pushed so-called “safe” storage laws, and promoted his scheme to implement a federal licensing program for gun owners. He went so far as to call out all of his opponents that don’t support his position, claiming anyone who does not support licensing “should not be a nominee from our party.” He then went on to pat himself on the back for pushing “the most ambitious” gun plan.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has been leading the pack in some polls, then spoke. She promoted the idea of limiting firearm purchases to one-a-month, and also suggesting a 7-day waiting period before a law-abiding citizen could take possession of a lawfully purchased firearm. She also threatened a federal investigation of NRA — a clear attempt to quash our right to free speech, and that of our more than 5 million members.

Following Warren was former Vice President Joe Biden. While Biden had been the favorite in the race, at one point commanding a lead of more than 25-points over his closest rival, his advantage has all but disappeared. Biden again raised his make-believe idea on gun control — mandating guns that can only operate utilizing “biometric markers.” He also pushed a ban on the manufacture of AR-15s and similar rifles, coupled with regulating those that are currently owned under the NFA. This scheme has been promoted by representatives of Giffords, one of the sponsors of the event, so Biden was clearly playing to the audience.

His presentation was marked by the usual rambling, odd tangents, and self-promoting hyperbole to which we’ve grown accustomed. At one point he stopped in the middle of praising those behind March for Our Lives to clumsily transition to talking about the federal restrictions on hunting migratory waterfowl; pointing out that there is a limit of three shells in your shotgun when in the field. That brought him to discussing putting limits on the number of rounds one can have in other firearms. Biden seems to be struggling with determining an arbitrarily acceptable limit on ammunition capacity, so maybe he’s now testing out the idea of using three.

Former Texas Representative Robert Francis O’Rourke, who self-identifies as “Beto,” took the stage after Biden. He specifically called out Mayor Buttigieg for not supporting his gun confiscation idea, all but calling him a coward. He seemed to imply the same about Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (R-N.Y.) and Senator Chris Coons (D-Del) for their questioning the level of support for the disarmament scheme.

O’Rourke also pushed the popular lie among the anti-gun crowd that AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles are “weapons of war.” He even made the outrageously false claim that such firearms are “sold to the militaries of the world.” Of course, this is just an evolution of what gun-ban advocate Josh Sugarmann began promoting in the late ‘80s, when he wrote about so-called “assault weapons”:

“The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons — anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

Of course, millions of law-abiding Americans own semi-automatic rifles, while fully-automatic firearms are strictly regulated under the NFA, and are what is actually “sold to the militaries of the world.”

He also claimed that, when the Second Amendment was ratified, it took “three minutes to reload a musket.” In fact, someone in the 18th century who was familiar with their musket could fire and reload it two- to three-times a minute. While that fact has little to do with the debate over gun control, what O’Rourke ignores is the more relevant fact that those privately owned muskets were no different than the muskets used by those in “the militaries of the world.”

The bottom-tier candidate waited until near the end of his time to break out two of the shticks for which he has become somewhat famous; profanity and high school-level Spanish.

Another bottom-tier candidate, Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar, was next, although she didn’t really bring anything new to the discussion. She mostly echoed the same, tired gun-control ideas promoted by those who came before her. Perhaps that is why she has been struggling throughout most of her campaign to generate more than 1% support in the polls.

Businessman Andrew Yang, who can’t seem to achieve much more than mid-single digit support in spite of promising to give people “free” money, had some curious ideas. He appeared to support Biden’s “biometric markers” idea, and mentioned expanding on the Booker notion of licensing by promoting a multi-tiered licensing program, although he didn’t offer real details on that while on stage, other than there would be different licenses for different guns.

Yang also mentioned wanting to keep track of people who own multiple firearms, but also offered no details on accomplishing this to the audience.

Two particularly odd ideas stood out. First, in order to counter the impact of organizations like NRA, he suggested giving every American $100.00 of what he referred to as “Democracy Dollars.” People could give this money to lawmakers and candidates to help influence their votes, which sounds a bit like buying votes. While we do not support the notion of buying votes, perhaps Mr. Yang did not consider the fact that NRA has five million members. Does he really want to add more than half-a-billion dollars that could be used to support the campaigns of candidates that support the Second Amendment?

His other odd idea, which may be better described as troubling, was the suggestion that gun manufacturers be fined every time one of their lawful products is used by a criminal. One presumes he is not suggesting the same penalties for the makers of any other lawful products commonly used by criminals. If he did, then he would likely be accused of trying to bankrupt the entire manufacturing industry, rather than just those that manufacture firearms.

One other odd statement he made, but also didn’t go into any real details about, was implying that criminals who use firearms to kill others are somehow victims. This line of thought deserves no additional commentary.

Finally, California Senator Kamala Harris spoke, offering nothing substantively new. She reiterated her desire to use executive action to implement many of her schemes. Perhaps hoping to avoid the ire of O’Rourke, she made clear that she supports his approach to banning and confiscating AR-15s and similar semi-automatic firearms. Some of the candidates who took the stage mentioned their version of supporting the Second Amendment included, at least to some extent, the right of self-defense. Harris, however, spoke only of respecting the Second Amendment as it relates, in her mind, to the tradition of hunting.

Ultimately, this anti-gun rally produced what would be expected of an event run by an anti-gun news outlet and anti-gun organizations. The same gun control ideas that have been promoted ad nauseum by radical extremists for years, or even decades. It was at least slightly interesting to see at what lengths candidates will go to try and out-anti-gun one another, especially considering the controlled environment where there was no chance of facing any sort of push-back. Especially from citizens who still respect the Constitution, individual freedom and our right to keep and bear arms.

 

Cruz Criticizes PolitiFact for Claiming O’Rourke Doesn’t Plan to ‘Take Our Guns’

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke are not pals, and Ted calls it how he sees it. Check out the links in this post and see what Beto says, and what Beto means, for yourself. READ MORE

beto shirt

SOURCE: National Review, by Mairead McArdle

Texas senator Ted Cruz took aim at fact-checking website PolitiFact last Friday, criticizing the site for having previously claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke does not plan to “take our guns” after O’Rourke explicitly suggested otherwise at last Thursday night’s Democratic debate.

“When we see that being used against children . . . hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” O’Rourke said from the debate stage when asked if he was proposing that the government confiscate legally owned assault-style weapons. “We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore.”

See VIDEO HERE

@BetoORourke
Hell yeah, we’re going to take your AR-15. If it’s a weapon that was designed to kill people on the battlefield, we’re going to buy it back.

@tedcruz
Just a reminder, when I said it, PolitiFact (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the DNC) rated “Beto wants to take our guns” as FALSE. Maybe they should buy one of his new t-shirts..

In March, PolitiFact fact-checked a line from a Cruz campaign song that accused O’Rourke of wanting to “open borders and . . . take our guns,” awarding it a “false” rating.

“We saw no language authorizing or directing officials to take existing guns,” PolitiFact said of a failed House measure backed by O’Rourke, which would ban the future sale of AR-15s.

“My intent is for AR-15s not to be sold to the public,” O’Rourke told the fact-checking outlet.

See what PolitiFact has to say and judge for yourself.

 

Trump Will NOT Support Universal Background Check Bill

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

The latest (early this week) reports indicate that President Trump will not support H.R. 8. READ MORE

trump

SOURCE: Brietbart, AWR Hawkins

President Donald Trump is reportedly not planning to include House Democrats’ universal background check bill as part of legislation he supports in response to mass shootings.

The Democrat gun control bill is H.R. 8.

Politico reports that a source familiar with the White House “conversation on guns” indicated that Trump is not going to rally behind H.R. 8.

On September 9, 2019, Breitbart News reported that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) asked Trump to support H.R. 8, thereby giving “political cover” to allow other Republicans to support it.

Schumer said, “President Trump has an historic opportunity to save lives by indicating his support for the House-passed bill [H.R. 8]. Speaker Pelosi and I have repeatedly and personally asked him to do this.”

He added, “[President Trump] can lead his party to support something that the NRA has prevented Republicans from supporting for years. That is why Speaker Pelosi and I sent the letter to him today, urging him to give his party political cover to pass … [the] background check legislation.”

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) spoke in favor of Trump’s reported rejection of universal background checks, saying, “The things that [the Democrats] are proposing just aren’t realistic and they know that and so it’s designed more to talk to their political base and it’s a lot more about that than I think an actual solution.”

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News 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 HERE

Journalist Attempts To Buy Guns At Walmart, Ends Up Collapsing The Left’s Anti-Gun Narrative Instead

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Hayley Peterson wrote that she set out to buy a gun from Walmart to see how easy it would be and found the process to be far more complicated than many have let on… READ MORE

wal mart

SOURCE: NRA-ILA, others

After the devastating shooting that took place in an El Paso, Texas, Walmart that left 22 people dead and 24 injured, the left began to do its usual pattern of never letting a crisis go to waste. Instead of taking a moment to mourn the fallen, they immediately launched into the process of making it an agenda item.

This includes a lot of virtue signaling aimed at Walmart. Leftists from lawmakers and activists, to random twitter users, began demanding Walmart cease selling firearms. All of them presented the idea that it’s incredibly easy to purchase a firearm from Walmart. More so, even, than cold medicine as David Hogg proposed.

@davidhogg111
It’s harder to get cold pills than an AR-15.
Something needs to change.

@CoryBooker
Thank you Walmart employees for demanding action. Walmart should use its power to stop selling guns in its stores until politicians and gun manufacturers get their act together and raise the standard for gun ownership in this country.

@BernieSanders
Walmart should respect the voices of its workers who are calling on the company to stop selling guns. I agree. This is exactly why I believe workers deserve representation on their board, so that their views are heeded.

But is it that easy to get a gun from Walmart? Enter Hayley Peterson of Business Insider.

Peterson wrote that she set out to buy a gun from Walmart to see how easy it would be and found the process to be far more complicated than many have let on:

“I went to Walmart with the intention of buying a gun last week as part of an investigation into the placement, selection, marketing, and security of firearms in Walmart’s stores, and to learn more about the retailer’s processes governing gun sales.”

“My journey to bring a gun home from Walmart turned out to be far more complicated than I expected.”

First, she went to Walmart’s website and found out that over 4,000 Walmart locations sell guns, but upon attempting to find out which one sells firearms in-store, she was coming up with vague answers. Furthermore, the only guns being displayed on Walmart’s website were non-lethal airsoft guns.

She then attempted to reach out to Walmart employees directly, but still had no luck:

“The only guns advertised on Walmart’s website are air guns, which are nonlethal. After about 30 minutes, I gave up on searching the internet and turned to the phone.”

“I figured that employees at any one of Walmart’s stores near me would know which locations sold guns.”

“I was wrong.”

“Over an hour and a half, I placed more than a dozen calls to multiple stores, waited on hold for a combined 40 minutes, and got through to a human only three times. Three Walmart employees told me they didn’t know which stores sold guns in the area.”

Calling customer service gave her no luck as well, as the representative told her they weren’t allowed to discuss item availability of that type for reasons he wouldn’t elaborate on. Finally, she managed to find a store that claimed it did sell them:

“Someone answered the phone at a Walmart Supercenter in Chesterfield, Virginia.”

“She transferred me to the sporting-goods department, where a woman on the line confirmed that I could buy a gun there.”

“The store was 30 minutes away. I got in my car and plugged the address for the Chesterfield Walmart into my phone.”

Peterson says she walked into the store, past the toy and bike aisles and located the gun counter right behind them. Even then, she encountered a sparse inventory with a lack of selection:

“A selection of about 20 rifles and shotguns was displayed in a locked glass case behind the sporting-goods counter. The guns ranged in price from $159 to $474.”

“The counter in front of the guns displayed pocket knives, binoculars, and digital night-vision monoculars inside a locked case.”

“The selection of guns was limited compared with nearby gun stores, which offered dozens of different kinds of firearms, including handguns.”

Peterson noted no advertisements for guns in the store. She was warned by signage that she was on camera in this particular area of the store and that upon request to purchase a gun, the manager was called.

The manager told Peterson that she would have to come back in a couple of days to purchase the firearm, as no licensed firearm seller was scheduled to work that day. She was told later that Walmart employees have to be legally qualified to sell firearms, passing background checks and going through training for it specifically.

She was able to look at the gun, and noted the very careful way in which the guns were locked up and secured, including zip ties that needed to be cut and replaced after every removal. Also, once purchased, the employee has to walk the gun to your car with you.

Upon returning a couple of days later, a woman was able to help sell the gun to Peterson. She walked Peterson through the process, had her pay $2 for her background check fee, and began filling out the paperwork. Peterson was stopped almost immediately, however, as her address didn’t match up the one displayed on her driver’s license:

“That was a problem, she said.”

“To pass the background check, I would need to bring in a government-issued document with my correct address, such as a bill from a state-owned utility or a car registration. (I have never bought a gun, so I wasn’t aware of this.)”

She apologized, told me the rules were strict around background checks, and asked me to come back another time to finish the purchase.

At that point, Peterson said she gave up trying to buy a gun from Walmart, and concluded that purchasing a gun from that store is incredibly difficult.

I doubt that many of the politicians and activists currently virtue signaling over Walmart have ever tried to purchase one from them. What’s more, I’m not sure how stopping the sale of firearms from Walmart would have helped anyone in El Paso, or prevented El Paso from happening. They don’t even sell handguns.

It seems to me that the “do something” crowd has picked a target in ignorance.

 

Hey Virginia! Speak Up Against Your Governor, And Do It Now!

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

His plans would leave Virginians with severely restricted rights. READ MORE

northam

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Following the tragedy in Virginia Beach, Governor Ralph Northam recently held a press conference outlining his plans to enact new gun control proposals that will significantly restrict the rights of Virginia’s law-abiding gun owners while doing nothing to stop criminals. Gov. Northam and his media allies are desperate to deflect attention from scandals involving all three statewide officeholders and are trying to scape-goat Virginia’s law-abiding gun owners for the actions of a madman.

If Gov. Northam gets his way, Virginia will have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Gov. Northam knows that none of his proposed gun control would have prevented the tragic murders in Virginia Beach, but they will make it harder for law-abiding Virginians to exercise their constitutional right to self-defense. Don’t let Gov. Northam take away your rights and put your safety at risk.

Don’t let Gov. Northam take away your rights and put your safety at risk.

It’s critical every gun owner in the Commonwealth contact their legislators, urging them to OPPOSE Gov. Northam’s anti-gun agenda, and attend the Special Session on Gun Control on July 9!

Would any of Gov. Ralph Northam’s gun control proposals have stopped the tragedy in Virginia Beach?

So-Called “Universal” Background Checks
NO.
According to law enforcement, the perpetrator of the shooting in Virginia Beach legally purchased the firearms used in the attack.

“Assault Weapons” Ban
NO.
The Virginia Beach tragedy was committed with handguns, not so-called “assault weapons.”

Standard Capacity Magazine Ban
NO.
Following the shooting, Virginia Beach Police Chief James Cervera stated, “As far as more legislation on gun issues. I’m a member of Major City Chiefs, we did publish something about a year and a half ago. I don’t think most of that would have mattered in this particular case. We do have the Second Amendment it is very stringent for our country. In this particular case, the weapons were obtained legally. Everything was done in a legal manner by this individual.”

Silencer/Suppressor Ban
NO.
Despite its name, firearms are still very loud when using a silencer/suppressor. The outcome of the attack at Virginia Beach would be no different with or without a silencer/suppressor.

One-Gun-A-Month Purchase Law
NO.
The perpetrator used two handguns to carry out the attack. The perpetrator bought one of the pistols in 2016 and the other in 2018.

Requiring Reporting Lost or Stolen Firearms
NO.
The firearms used in the Virginia Beach tragedy were purchased through a Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealer.

Government-Mandated Firearm Storage
NO.
The alleged perpetrator of the attack was 40 years old at the time of the attack. A government-mandated safe storage law would have had no effect on the attack.

Weakening State Firearms Preemption
NO.
Like many of the other proposed gun control ideas, weakening state firearms preemption would have done nothing to prevent the tragedy in Virginia Beach because criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. These laws and others are only effective in restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Say NO to Gov. Northam’s extreme gun control agenda. This is anti-gun politics as usual. Let’s demand real solutions from Richmond, not failed gun control schemes.

Kamala Harris Says She’ll Ban Imports of all AR-15-Style Assault Weapons if Congress Doesn’t Act

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Harris: I’ll give Congress 100 days to pass gun laws… READ MORE

kamala harris

SOURCE: CNN, by Kyung Lah

Sen. Kamala Harris on Wednesday announced that, if she is elected president, she will ban the importation of all AR-15 style assault weapons by executive action if Congress fails to act in the first 100 days of her administration.

Harris made the announcement at a campaign stop in New Hampshire. “Assault weapons are designed to kill a lot of people in a very short period of time,” Harris said.

“I think that this has got to be something that is understood, that we cannot any longer afford to allow people to make this a partisan issue,” Harris added. “Those guns, those assault weapons, do not discriminate and determine, ‘OK, is the person pointing it at, is it a Democrat or Republican.’ “

Harris’ proposal is the latest in a series of gun-related executive actions she has promised to take if she wins the Democratic nomination and defeats Donald Trump in 2020. Previously, Harris had said she’d use presidential executive action to mandate near-universal background checks, revoke licenses of gun dealers who break the law, limit fugitives with outstanding arrest warrants from buying guns and close the so-called “boyfriend loophole.”

Harris’ new proposal “would ban AR-15-style assault weapon imports because they are not ‘suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.’ Additionally, the Harris proposal would have the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives suspend all assault weapons imports until the agency studies and determines admissibility under the “sporting purpose” test, said the Harris official.

SEE the video HERE

More Proof That Being a “Celebrity” Does Not Make You Smart

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Intellectual giant Tom Arnold claims that “80-percent of gun owners shoot themselves or their own families.” REALLY?

tom arnold

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

In a November 30 tweet, Tom Arnold, famous for being married to Roseanne Barr and making a few really bad movies, has proven that he knows nothing about guns, gun owners or firearm misuse.

Here is his exact tweet:

“This explains why 80% of gun owners shoot themselves or
members of their own families.”

Really? It’s a claim that is so absurd it hardly needs to be refuted, except that these days the media and many uninformed anti-gun activists might just believe it.

Here is the reality.

Let’s assume that there are 100 million gun owners in the United States. Some estimates are higher than that, and some lower, but it’s a reasonable estimate. That means that for Arnold’s ridiculous claim to be true, there would have to be more than 80 million instances where people shot themselves or their family member in their lifetimes.

So if we assume that the average American lives sixty years at an age where they can lawfully possess a firearm, it would mean there would have been on average more than 1 million shootings each year. And, it would mean that there would have been over 2,500 shootings each day! Obviously, these would be in addition to any shootings that were not self-inflicted or perpetrated against a family member. Needless to say, this isn’t happening.

Anti-gun politicians and activists have long used suspect statistics to boost their position. They conflate homicides and suicides and include accidents to exaggerate the amount of “violence” committed with guns. They count “children” as anyone under the age of 24 to inflate the number of “child” shooting victims. They completely ignore jurisdictions with high rates of firearm ownership but low rates of firearm crime, to advance their agenda of more and more restrictions on gun ownership.

But this claim by Tom Arnold is clear evidence that opponents of gun ownership, especially celebrities and media hungry politicians, cannot be trusted to make honest arguments.

Perhaps that is because it would require a little effort to learn the truth. Or, it may well be that it is due to the simple fact that the truth does not support their increasingly radical positions.