Tag Archives: gun rights

Breaking! Canada Moves to Ban 1500 types of Military Style Weapons

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Just when you thought Trudeau couldn’t neuter Canada much further, he goes and does something like this. Read On!

Trudeau announces ban on 1,500 types of 'assault-style' firearms ...

Nearly two weeks after the deadliest mass shooting in Canada’s history, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Friday introduced an immediate ban on what he described as “assault-style military weapons.” The 14 hour Nova Scotia shooting spree left 23 people dead, including the gunman.

“These weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time,” Mr. Trudeau said. “There is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada.”

The killer did not have a firearms license and many of his guns and rifles had been smuggled into Canada from the United States, according to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, highlighting one difficulty Canada may face in enforcing the new measure. The gunman’s “arsenal” included two models banned on Friday, said Bill Blair, the country’s public safety minister.

Mr. Trudeau said the government will introduce legislation to buy back the rifles, another part of his campaign promise, at a future date. Until then, owners have been given two years to keep their rifles although they can no longer use them, trade them or sell them except to buyers outside Canada with a permit. Gun shops can return any of the weapons they now have in stock to manufacturers.

The leader of the Conservative Party, Andrew Scheer, once again spoke out against any ban or buyback of military-style weapons, noting that many mass killers, including Gabriel Wortman in Nova Scotia, and other criminals use illegal firearms brought in from the United States. “It’s easy but lazy government to ask the people who follow all the rules to follow more rules,” Mr. Scheer told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. He also criticized Mr. Trudeau for introducing the measure through a cabinet order while Parliament is not meeting in normal sessions because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Follow this link to read the full government declaration for yourself: https://www.scribd.com/document/459370005/Federal-government-banning-military-style-guns#from_embed

Ohio Supreme Court to Decide Whether People Can Have Firearms in the Home While Intoxicated

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Should gun owners in Ohio be permitted to “carry” their firearms in their homes while intoxicated? READ MORE

handgun

SOURCE: AP and Jordan Michaels

That’s the question at issue in a case headed for the Ohio Supreme Court in February.

Fredrick Weber was convicted in June of 2018 under a 45-year-old law that prohibits Ohio residents from carrying or using a firearm while intoxicated. Weber appealed his conviction to the 12th District Court of Appeals, which confirmed the municipal court’s ruling. Now, on a 4-3 vote, the state Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

According to court documents, a deputy and a sergeant from the Clermont County Sheriff’s Office were dispatched to Weber’s home after his wife reported that her husband was carrying a firearm while intoxicated. Even though she told deputies that Weber had put his firearm away, she let them into the home, where they saw Weber coming out of a doorway and holding a shotgun.

The shotgun was pointed towards the ground, and deputies confirmed that it was unloaded. Weber claimed he had been wiping down the firearm to put it away.

Deputies noticed that Weber’s eyes were bloodshot and glassy, his speech was slurred, and he was unsteady on his feet. Weber admitted he was drunk and subsequently failed a field sobriety test.

In his appeal, Weber’s attorneys argued that their client wasn’t using the shotgun “as a firearm” and had not or was not about to commit a crime. They also argued that the law prohibiting the use or possession of firearms while intoxicated is unconstitutional because it infringed on their client’s rights to keep and bear arms and defend himself.

They further argued that a person’s intoxication level shouldn’t have a bearing on possessing a weapon “in the hearth and home,” according to the Associated Press.

“Weber suggests that it was never the intention of the constitutional framers that someone like him (or anyone similarly situated) be guilty of possessing a weapon while intoxicated in his/her home,” Weber’s appeal reads, according to The Toledo Blade.

“If such be the case, any off-duty law enforcement officer (or any other person that has firearms in the residence) who has a few alcoholic beverages while in his/her house and has law enforcement happen into that residence can be charged and convicted under a ritualistic or formulaic implementation of the statute,” it reads.

“Their police officers are the first to respond to domestic violence incidents, interpersonal gun violence, gun suicides, and unintentional shootings, all of which are made more lethal by the combination of guns and alcohol,” reads a brief filed by Toledo, Lima, Columbus, Cincinnati, Akron, and Dayton, according to The Blade. “They are the ones who have to respond to domestic violence calls where the mixture of guns and alcohol often leads to women being killed and officers being assaulted.”

Toledo Law Director Dale Emch put an even finer point on it:

“It’s just common sense that the intoxicated should not be carrying weapons in my mind, whether in your home or not,” he said. “That’s just a bad recipe.”

Oral arguments aren’t scheduled until February 25, and a final decision isn’t expected for months, according to the AP.

 

Slow and Steady Gun Control?

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

In an interview with Fox News anchor Ed Henry Thursday on new control measures being decided on in the coming weeks, President Trump said that negotiations on the issue are “going very slowly.”

Image result for trump guns

“No, we’re not moving on anything. We’re going very slowly in one way, because we want to make sure it’s right. We want to — we’re doing a very careful job,” Mr. Trump said.

If you’re nudged a few inches each time something happens, eventually you’ve been moved a mile. I’ve heard this for years, and always put stock in it. In 2019 it seems the trend may continue with more measures being taken by the current administration to impose some form of “common sense” gun control.

Image result for nudge

In the wake of two shootings in August, the Trump Administration began the process of working with warmed over gun control measures proffered in 2013 from senators Manchin and Toomey. The measures in question carry a stronger background check system, without calling for universal checks, but even this has been walked-back since it’s announcement. Attorney General Barr, and Senator Murphy are said to be in on the architecture of the new proposals expected to roll out after the United Nations General Assembly next week.

Image result for trump guns

In the Fox News interview, Mr. Trump also slammed Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke, who has called for a ban on assault weapons and a mandatory buyback for any assault weapons currently possessed by gun owners.

Beto (honestly, what is a beto?) said in the previous debate, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” referring to his support for mandatory buybacks of war weapons {sic}.

Image result for beto o'rourke guns

“Part of the problem that we have is because of Beto O’Rourke’s statement about taking away guns,” Mr. Trump said. “A lot of Republicans and some Democrats now are afraid to do anything, to go down that slippery slope. A lot of people think this is just a way of taking away guns and that’s not good, because we’re not going to allow that.”

He went on to say “I am, if it’s not going to hurt a good, solid, great American citizen from keeping his weapon because they want that and they are entitled to that. We have a Second Amendment. I don’t want to have crazy people have guns. I don’t want to have bad people have guns, but we’re going to do nothing to hurt the Second Amendment, and what we want to do is see if we can come up with a compromise, and that’s what we’re working on.”

Here we stand, waiting with baited breath, for our current republican lead government to decide on yet another “nudge.” Until the root cause of the recent rash of shootings, stabbings, and other cruel acts of the mentally unstable are confronted, any act to diminish the rights of law abiding citizens is yet another inch we’ve been moved toward tighter restrictions on our Second Amendment right.

Is there a right answer? Is there a test? Is there an amount of freedom we’re willing to give up in order to ensure the wrong people don’t end up with a weapon capable of doing harm on a scale larger than hand to hand combat? Is it all or nothing? Keep it civil in the comments, but please feel free to discuss!

Colorado Student Banned From School For Going Shooting With His Mom

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Dang. When I was a kid in Colorado I used to go shooting with the School Superintendent and his kids… This is insane! READ ABOUT IT

loveland high school

SOURCE: RallyForYourRights.com by Lesley Hollywood

Justine Myers is your pretty average northern Colorado mom. She loves her kids, supports the troops, praises our first responders, and owns firearms. On Wednesday, Justine picked up her 16 year old son Nate early from school for some mother-son bonding time — she took him shooting, a common northern Colorado hobby.

After a fun afternoon, they return home and get settled in — and the police show up. Nate had posted on his Snapchat that he was going shooting with his mom along with a video (for those who need a little help translating the slang kids use these days “Finna be lit” basically means “Going to be a good time”)… See that HERE

And there’s a VIDEO of him shooting with his mother, who can be heard instructing him.

A report had come in to the police department about the video and they were told Nate was a threat. After showing the videos to the police officers and explaining that they’d simply gone on a mother-son outing to train with their legally owned firearms, the police stated that they had done nothing illegal and were well within their rights. They also determined Nate was not a threat to himself or anyone else, and went on their way.

But it wasn’t over.

The next Justine woke up to a voicemail from Thompson Valley School District where Nate is a junior at Loveland High School in Loveland, Colorado. The voicemail informed Justine that a report had come in claiming Nate was a threat to the school and he was not allowed to return until further notice. The report presumably came through “Safe 2 Tell,” which is essentially an anonymous “red flag” reporting outlet. There are reports that a schoolwide email was also sent to parents about the “threat.” Justine immediately contacted the school assuming she could easily clear things up, especially since the police had already assessed the situation and realized no one had done anything wrong or made any threats. She was wrong. The school not only refused to provide her with more information about the “threat,” but they refused to provide Nate with schoolwork so he didn’t get behind. A “threat assessment hearing” has been scheduled for Thursday morning at 10am at the school admin building where Justine will be allowed to defend her son against SEVEN school officials who will be in attendance to, as she was told, “make their case.” Make their case of what? That Nate’s outing with his mother to train using firearms with her somehow makes him a danger to the school?

I spoke with Justine, as well as two different attorneys who specialize in Second Amendment issues. The bottom line is the school is legally within their rights at this time. According to the attorneys, the school has a protocol that must be followed when a report of a threat comes in through Safe 2 Tell or other means, even if the report is completely false — and there is nothing parents or students can legally do about it, even with a lawyer. If the student is charged or further action is taken, that changes. This is why students have dubbed Safe 2 Tell as “Safe 2 Swat,” referencing the act of “swatting,“ a criminal harassment tactic of deceiving an emergency service into sending a police and emergency service response team to another person’s address. The person who will face no repercussions? The false accuser. As for Nate, he has aspirations to join the military and is now worried this incident will go on his permanent school record with far-reaching implications.

If this happens to you or your child, what should you do?

1.) Don’t talk to the police.
2.) Be prepared for a visit from CPS.
3.) Consider moving your firearms to safe place until it is cleared up.
4.) Contact us for lawyer referrals and moral support. HERE

We’ve had some people accuse us of this story being fabricated. We don’t fabricate stories. The mother is a member of our organization [Rocky Mountain Gun Owners] and we reached out to help her. We have both email and voicemails from the school but chose to not publish them out of fear of readers doxxing the school employees (something we’d rather not be held legally liable for). The story is breaking. Click HERE for another source.

Additionally, Complete Colorado, a news and commentary source in the state, sent Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams the Snapchat with no context to what was happening and asked him how he would interpret the post, he said it appeared to him someone got a new gun and was excited to go shoot it.

When told of the outcome, Reams could not believe one person’s fears were causing such a shakeup for another. He said this is the perfect example of the damage a Red Flag Law can do.

“People base their apprehension on their own paradigm and their own fear of guns and gun culture,” Reams said. “One kid is totally excited to go out and train on how to use a gun responsibly, while another kid is totally freaked out about seeing a gun.”

TAGS

NASCAR Chooses Anti-Gun Stance

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Unbelievable news folks! NASCAR rejects gun ads, cites “gradual shift” on attitude toward guns. READ MORE

nascar crash
Looks like this is where NASCAR might be heading with gun owners.

SOURCE: article by David Dolbee, and other sources

One of the largest professional sports organizations on the planet, and one of the most popular, is risking losing the faith and support of a large segment of their fan base.

Nascar’s “Gradual Shift”
In March and April 2019, several firearms retailers and manufacturers were contacted by National Event Publications, official media sales agent for the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, NASCAR, PGA, NHRA, and USA Today Lifestyle. The pitch was to buy advertising in the official program for the last 26 races of the season. K-Var, a well respected figure in the firearms industry, opted to advertise, as did at least 16 other manufacturers or retailers including CZ-USA, Beretta, Daniel Defense, and others. The deadline to have artwork submitted for approval was April 19, 2019. Then, on August 19, 2019 (four months later) K-Var was contacted by National Event Publications with the following message:

“We just heard from NASCAR on a number of gun related ads and unfortunately, due a gradual shift in NASCAR’s position on guns, these ads must be edited/changed — especially those that are depicted as assault-style rifles/sniper rifles. NASCAR is still open to some of the less controversial gun accessories, concealed carry, or classes.”

nascar banned ad
Here’s the ad that K-Var had banned by NASCAR.

Did you know NASCAR was going through a “gradual shift on guns?” What does that even mean? NASCAR has allowed ads from firearms manufacturers for several years. AK-47s, AR-15s, and scoped rifles have all been featured in the past, so, by that statement, it can only mean that NASCAR is marching toward a complete anti-gun stance — it is just slow rolling it for some reason.

We can only wonder what NASCAR might be thinking, or if they’re thinking at all. We don’t have figures in hand, but one can only imagine that a good percentage of their fan base are gun owners, it might be 50 percent, 80 percent, 20 percent, more, less, but it’s bound to be enough that this “gradual shift” will backfire beyond their imagination. Winston Churchill said it many years ago: ‘Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.’ Do they not know the ramifications, the fervent uproar and boycotts the pro Second Amendment supporters have waged against the likes of Dick’s Sporting Goods or Yeti Coolers? All Yeti had to do was state it was cutting ties with the NRA for political reasons to earn the ire of the pro firearms forces, which expressed their displeasure in rather spectacular fashion. What will they do with NASCAR?

Gander Outdoors sponsors the NASCAR Truck Series. Does NASCAR realize all that is for sale at Gander? Bass Pro Shops sponsors a car. Has NASCAR checked out what Bass Pro is selling? This all happened after the Bass Pro Shops NRA Night Race at Bristol Motor Speedway. Reports now say Henry USA is vying for a new NASCAR sponsorship. The mixed messaging leaves many scratching their heads.

Whether or not you are a NASCAR fan, do you think the majority of its fanbase is pro Second Amendment or pro gun control? Does anyone really believe an overwhelming majority of NASCAR fans are not going to rebel at NASCAR’s “gradual shift?”

Please comment!

MSNBC Accidentally Stumbles On Defense Of 2nd Amendment Over Gov’t Violence In Venezuela

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

What it looks like when you’re ‘mugged by reality.’ At :30 in it gets serious… READ IT ALL

venezula gun news

SOURCE: TheBlaze.com, Carlos Garcia

Viewers of the progressive cable news network MSNBC were stunned to hear a justification for 2nd Amendment gun rights after violence broke out in Venezuela by the government against their unarmed citizenry.

MSNBC news anchor Andrea Mitchell was speaking to their correspondent Kerry Sanders when he made what sounded like a common gun rights argument.

“This is taking longer than they thought,” said Mitchell of the U.S. efforts to unseat Venezuelan dictator Maduro, “despite the sanctions, despite the pressure, with the help of Russia and other outside forces, Maduro is hanging on.”

“Not only hanging on,” agreed Sanders, “but he appears to still control the military. You have to understand that in Venezuela, gun ownership is not something that is open to everybody, so if the military have the guns, they have the power. And as long as Nicolas Maduro controls the military, he controls the country.”

Sanders was unwittingly making the argument for gun rights in order to secure the liberty of the people against what often veers into government tyranny.

“And Juan Guaido and his supporters have tried to peacefully protest,” Sanders explained, “they have gathered in large numbers. What we saw today when he met early this morning and stood there in front of those wearing uniforms, appear to be rank and file members who have switched their allegiance. We have seen over the recent months, those who have switched their allegiance, but not en masse.”

The surprise defense of gun rights from a network that often defends and advocates for greater gun control was widely celebrated on social media by proponents of the 2nd Amendment.

Here’s the video of MSNBC becoming gun-woke:

 

NRA Applauds Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb for Signing Comprehensive Gun Rights Bill into Law

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

New Indiana law eliminates fees for gun ownership and relaxes carry restrictions. READ MORE

indiana gun law

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) applauds Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb for signing into law a comprehensive gun rights bill that will make it easier for law-abiding Hoosiers to defend themselves. Gov. Holcomb signed the bill into law on the stage of the NRA-ILA’s Leadership Forum at the Indiana Convention Center — Lucas Oil Stadium.

Lawmakers amended HB 1284, introduced by Rep. Jim Lucas, to include important self-defense protection from HB 1643, introduced by Rep. Ben Smaltz.

The new law expands self-defense options in the following ways:
eliminates state fees for a new five-year state License to Carry a Handgun (LTCH);
allows law-abiding gun owners greater ability to carry for self-protection in churches;
allows gun owners to register to vote when they apply for a LTCH.

“Under this new law, honest, hard-working gun owners will no longer be forced to pay $125 to exercise a fundamental right that ought to be free,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA-ILA executive director. “This law ends this abuse and ensures that the most vulnerable gun owners are able to protect themselves without worrying about the cost of a license.”

Additionally, the new law provides greater protection to gun owners. Previously, an undue burden was on the defendant in exercising the right to self-defense. Under the new law, that burden is shifted. In addition, a person who acts in self-defense and is later forced to defend themselves a second time in court can be reimbursed for the legal fees associated with their defense.

“On behalf of our more than 5 million members, I want to thank Gov. Holcomb for standing up for the rights of honest, hard-working gun owners,” added Cox. “I also want to thank Reps. Jim Lucas and Ben Smaltz for their tireless efforts promoting legislation that improves the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families.”

How a Democratic House Will Affect Gun Rights

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

How will a Democrat-controlled House affect your Second Amendment-protected freedom? HERE’S HOW!

gun rights

SOURCE: NSSF, by Larry Keane

Democrats voted overwhelmingly for U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to become Speaker of the House in the new Congress. She promises to make gun control a priority. The National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Larry Keane told the Washington Times what we can expect.

Republicans do still hold the Senate by a slim margin and President Donald J. Trump could veto legislation, so gun-control bills passed by the House aren’t likely to become law. Instead, they are more likely to be passed to create political talking points for 2020.

“Expect hearings on taxpayer-funded gun violence research, magazine restrictions, ammunition bans, age-based gun bans, and attempts to outright ban entire classes of firearms,” says Larry Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for firearms manufacturers.

“Virginia Democratic Congresswoman-elect Jennifer Wexton defeated Rep. Barbara Comstock on a platform that included banning AR-15 modern sporting rifles and standard capacity magazines. She’s just one of several newly elected members of Congress who will be looking to make good on their campaign promises,” says Mr. Keane.

Gun Control Fail: California Firearm Homicides Up 18 Percent

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

California, a state with every gun control imaginable, witnessed an 18 percent rise in firearm homicides from 2014 to 2016. READ IT ALL

police line

SOURCE: Breitbart, AWR Hawkins

This rise in firearm homicides comes despite the fact that Democrats, gun control groups, and the establishment media constantly claim that states with the strictest gun controls see lower rates of violence and death.

California has universal background checks, gun registration requirements, red flag laws (i.e., Gun Violence Restraining Orders), a ten-day waiting period for gun purchases, an “assault weapons” ban, a one-gun-per-month limit on handgun purchases, a minimum firearm purchase age of 21, a ban on campus carry, a “good cause” restriction for concealed carry permit issuance, and controls on the purchase of ammunition. The ammunition controls limit law-abiding Californians to buying ammunition from state-approved vendors–all of whom are in-state sellers–and adds a fee to any ammunition bought online, also requiring that ammunition to be shipped to a state-approved vendor for pickup.

Additionally, the state mandates gun free zones in businesses where alcohol is sold for on-site consumption. Therefore, the few concealed carry permit holders in the state must enter myriad restaurants without any means of self-defense. This provides a target-rich environment for attackers who want to be sure no one can shoot back when they strike. We last saw this on November 7, 2018, when an attacker opened fire with a handgun in the gun-free Borderline Bar & Grill in Thousand Oaks, California.

Despite all the stringent gun controls a bill filed by Assemblyman Marc Levine (CA-D-10) admits California firearm homicides were up between from 2014 to 2016. The bill says, “Although California has the toughest gun laws in the nation, more effort is necessary to curtail gun violence. The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation found that from 2014 to 2016 gun homicides increased 18 percent.” In light of this gun control failure the language of the bill goes on to suggest more gun control.

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

 

California: CA DOJ Issues Consumer Alert Regarding Use of Non-REAL IDs for Firearm Purchases

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Is this really necessary, or is it nothing more than another deterrent to citizens wishing to purchase a firearm? READ ABOUT IT

california

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

Earlier this year in March, we provided information regarding the use of Non-REAL-IDs for firearm purchases.

On Tuesday, November 20, Attorney General Becerra issued a consumer alert regarding the Use of “Federal Limits Apply” Driver Licenses and IDs to purchase firearms.

This consumer alert advises: Firearm Dealers may require additional documentation to prove lawful residency in the United State in the event that a “federal limits apply” identification card or drivers license is being utilized for the acquisition of a firearm. This is due to recent law revisions and the advice of the California Department of Justice to Firearms Dealers to consider requiring the additional documentation. Be sure to check with your firearms dealer ahead of time to avoid any unforeseen problems this holiday season. A firearms dealer may request one of the following documents to establish lawful residency:

  • Valid, unexpired U.S. passport or passport card
  • Certified copy of U.S. birth certificate
  • U.S. Certificate or Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen
  • Valid, unexpired foreign passport with valid U.S. immigrant visa and approved Record of Arrival/Departure (I-94) form
  • Certified copy of birth certificate from a U.S. Territory
  • Certificate of Naturalization or U.S. Citizenship
  • Valid, unexpired Permanent Resident Card

Please continue to check the California Stand and Fight web page for updates on issues impacting your Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage in California.