Tag Archives: NRA-ILA

Why We Fight To Preserve, Safeguard Our Important Second Amendment

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

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

ILA

SOURCE: NRA-ILA by Jason Ouimet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

NRA Names Jason Ouimet to Head NRA Institute for Legislative Action

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Jason Ouimet appointed to be ILA executive director. READ MORE

ouimet

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

NRA’s Statement on Second Amendment Sanctuaries

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

The NRA releases a statement regarding recent red-flag laws.

nra

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

As the Nation’s oldest civil rights organization, we recognize civic engagement as a virtue not a vice. Liberty is reliant upon the participation of free people, and this includes the vast number of citizens and communities who are lawfully exercising their rights under the First Amendment to defend their freedoms under the Second. It is the tyrannical nature of politicians that triggers sanctuary, not the other way around. The NRA has steadfastly defended freedom for nearly 150 years, and we have no intention of suppressing virtuous voices against governmental oppression—censoring is what our opponents do.

 

BIG NEWS: H.R. 7115: NATIONWIDE PROPOSED BAN IN THE WORKS

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Don’t sit and watch, people, and don’t assume that our interests are not our own responsibility! Read about this one coming around HERE

assault rifle ban

SOURCE: Various reports compiled by Glen Zediker, BLOG Editor

On November 2nd of last week I-1639 passed in Washington State. Next may be the passage of H.R. 7115 in the U.S. House, the “3D Firearms Prohibition Act.”

What that is, at its heart:

To prohibit the sale, acquisition, distribution in commerce, or import into the United States of certain firearm receiver castings or blanks, assault weapon parts kits, and machinegun parts kits and the marketing or advertising of such castings or blanks and kits on any medium of electronic communications, to require homemade firearms to have serial numbers, and for other purposes.

Notable is Section 3:

SEC. 3. Prohibition of advertising do-it-yourself assault weapons.

(a) It shall be unlawful to market or advertise, on any medium of electronic communications, including over the Internet, for the sale of any of the following:

(1) A firearm receiver casting or firearm receiver blank or unfinished handgun frame that…

(A) …at the point of sale does not meet the definition of a firearm in section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code; and

(B) after purchase by a consumer, can be completed by the consumer to the point at which such casting or blank functions as a firearm frame or receiver for a semiautomatic assault weapon or machinegun or the frame of a handgun.

(2) An assault weapon parts kit.

(3) A machinegun parts kit.

H.R. 7115 was sponsored by New Jersey Democrat Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., for “himself, Mr. Sires, Ms. Norton, Mr. Cárdenas, Mr. Khanna, Mr. Pascrell, Ms. Schakowsky, Mr. Hastings, Ms. Clarke of New York, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Soto, Mr. McGovern, Ms. Kelly of Illinois, and Mr. Rush.” It has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary.

Keep in mind that the Dems took back the House this election.

And this isn’t just going to affect folks who build guns. In Washington State an huge number of guns are soon to be reclassed as “assault weapons” thanks to the wording of the 1639. H.R. So 7115 will concern any and all gun owners because if it passes it’s nationwide. No more AR builds, Polymer80 handgun builds, and adios to an amount of gun rights.

Call your representative. Support a firearms advocacy group. JOIN NRA!

The anti-gunners are winning, at least in “support” from more and more mainstream entities. Enough support and the win could be outright and absolute.

We — gun owners — are “big enough” to stop them. Just don’t sit back and think it’s all just handled for us by groups like NRA or Second Amendment Foundation. We have to work together, and we all have to participate.

The fight isn’t later, it’s here. NOW!

NRA Membership

SUPPORT NRA-ILA

A short aside: From my own recent experience, my The Competitive AR15: Builders Guide book was denied a listing on eBay.  (Take a look at it here at Midsouth and see if it’s screaming “international terrorism.”) After a total of 4 hours on the phone with them they told me it was a “military manual” and therefore prohibited by their policies (despite others having sold that book for years there) because it had “AR15” in the title and nice photo of a partially-constructed A2 on its cover. Consider that, if you would, next time you’re looking for an online sales source to give your money to. Spend it here!
— GZ

Feinstein Distorted Facts About AR-15, NRA Says

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein claims that the AR-15 is not “in common use.” Really? READ MORE

feinstein ar15

SOURCE: NRA-ILA

The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action called into question the California Democrat’s assertions about the weapon and said the rifle has gained popularity in recent years.

The group cited figures from the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The firearms industry trade group calculated that between 1996-2016 more than 16 million AR-15 and AK-pattern rifles have been available for sale in the U.S.

NRA went on to accuse Feinstein of distorting facts in what it described as the senator’s ongoing effort to limit Second Amendment gun rights: “Needless to say, there is nothing ‘reasonable’ or moderate about banning what is literally the most popular class of rifles in America.”

“I’m talking about your statement on ‘common use,’ she told Kavanaugh. “Assault weapons are not in common use.”

“Semi-automatic rifles are widely possessed in the United States,” Kavanaugh rebutted. “There are millions and millions. … That seemed to fit the [definition of] ‘common use’ and not being a dangerous and unusual weapon.”

Judge Kavanaugh: “Semi-automatic rifles are widely possessed in the United States. There are millions and millions. … That seemed to fit the [definition of] ‘common use.'”

Feinstein countered that the numbers of rifles in existence didn’t constitute “common use,” arguing that the term applies to how often the weapons are used.

“Common items are routinely said to be “in use” for a purpose whether or not that involves active manipulation of the item at any given time,” the NRA said.

Feinstein has been a fierce gun-control advocate since her days as on the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco. She was the first person to discover her colleague Harvey Milk on his office floor after he’d been fatally shot, according to the Los Angeles Times. A former supervisor, Dan White, also assassinated then-Mayor George Moscone on that day in November 1978.

Since then, Feinstein has advocated for tough gun reforms:

“I have been a woman on a mission to ban assault weapons,” the senator said, to applause, at a gathering of union members at the California Democratic Party convention this year. “This is not our America, and we need to change it,” she said.

That hasn’t stopped her from owning firearms. Two years before the assassinations, Feinstein was trained to use a .38 five-shot revolver and obtained a concealed-carry permit.

She attempted to reenact the Clinton-era assault weapons ban in the aftermath of several high-profile mass shootings, including the Oct. 1, 2017, shooting in Las Vegas that left 58 people dead and hundreds injured.

The NRA called it ban-revival effort a “125-page firearm prohibition fever dream [that] is perhaps the most far-reaching gun ban ever introduced in Congress.”

During the Kavanaugh hearing, Feinstein asserted that Kavanaugh’s reasoning for dissenting on the District of Columbia’s assault weapons ban was “far outside the mainstream of legal thought and it surpasses the views of [the late Justice Antonin] Scalia, who was obviously a pro-gun justice.

“If the Supreme Court were to adopt your reasoning,” she said to Kavanaugh, ” I fear the number of victims would continue to grow.”

Kavanaugh: “Semi-automatic rifles are widely possessed in the United States. There are millions and millions. … That seemed to fit the [definition of] ‘common use.'”

Here’s the full video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRmapqDakE&feature=youtu.be

 

Student Suspended For “Liking” a Photo of an Airsoft Gun on Instagram

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Seventh-grader Zachary Bowlin last week was given a 10-day suspension from Edgewood Middle School [Ohio] for liking a picture of a gun on the social media site with the caption, “Ready.” Read more…

Source: AOL.com News and FOX19

airsoft gun school suspension

The parents of Zachary Bowlin posted a picture of the intended suspension notice which read, “The reason for the intended suspension is as follows: Liking a post on social media that indicated potential school violence.”

“I liked it, scrolling down Instagram at night about 7, 8 o’clock, I liked it,” Bowlin told FOX19. “The next morning they called me down [to the office] patted me down and checked me for weapons.”

The gun in the photo is reportedly an airsoft gun that shoots plastic pellets.

Instagram airsoft gun

The 13-year-old’s parents were angry about the suspension. “It was 10 days suspension with the possibility of expulsion. I’m like, ‘For liking a gun? Did he make a comment or threat or anything?,'” Bowlin’s father, Marty, told WLWT News in Cincinnati, “And it’s like, ‘No. He just liked a picture.’ I’m like, ‘Well, this can’t happen.'”

The school, however, stands by taking precaution right away. “When you’re dealing with school districts nowadays and there are pictures of guns, regardless of the kind of gun it is, it’s a gun,” Edgewood City Schools Superintendent Russ Fussnecker told WLWT, “I cannot just turn my head and act as if, well, I think it may have been playful and take the chance that something happens,” Fussnecker continued. “I can’t take a chance.”

The suspension was for both Bowlin and the boy who took the photo. Once Fussnecker found out the gun was for pellets, it was revoked. Bowlin can return to school without penalty. The boy who posted the photo is reportedly still under suspension.

Fussnecker told FOX19 in a statement: “Concerning the recent social media posting of a gun with the caption ‘Ready,’ and the liking of this post by another student, the policy at Edgewood City Schools reads as follows:
“The Board has a ‘zero tolerance’ of violent, disruptive, harassing, intimidating, bullying, or any other inappropriate behavior by its students.

Students are also subject to discipline as outlined in the Student Code of Conduct that occurs off school property when the misbehavior adversely affects the educational process.

As the Superintendent of the Edgewood City Schools, I assure you that any social media threat will be taken serious [sic] including those who ‘like’ the post when it potentially endangers the health and safety of students or adversely affects the educational process.”

 

Seattle Gun Tax Fails to Generate Projected Revenue, Succeeds in Burdening Rights

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestyoutube

Seattle gun and ammo tax a huge failure! Read on…

Source NRA-ILA

tax burdenOn March 16, 2017, the Seattle Times reported that Seattle city officials were reluctant to release data on the revenue generated by the city’s firearms and ammunition tax, citing taxpayer confidentiality concerns. Less than a week later, we now know the more likely reason that Seattle failed to disclose this tax revenue: because the money raised fell woefully short of the figure projected by supporters of the tax.

In July 2015, Seattle City Council President Tim Burgess proposed legislation he dubbed a “Gun Violence Tax,” contending that “It’s time for the gun industry to help defray” the cost of criminal violence perpetrated with guns. Burgess’s proposal was unanimously passed by the city council on August 10, 2015. The legislation imposed a $25 tax on firearm sales, a $.02 per round tax on .22 and smaller-caliber ammunition, and a $.05 per round tax on ammunition greater than .22 caliber. The revenue was intended to be used to fund anti-gun research at the Harborview Medical Center.

On August 24, 2015, NRA, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and the Second Amendment Foundation filed suit in King County Superior Court to prevent the city from enforcing the new tax. NRA’s complaint pointed out that the tax violates the Second Amendment and is also impermissible under Washington state law.

The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that governments are not permitted to attack constitutionally-protected conduct through taxation. In the First Amendment context, the Court struck down a Minnesota use tax on ink and paper used in publishing. In that case — Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue — the Court warned that, “A power to tax differentially, as opposed to a power to tax generally, gives a government a powerful weapon against the taxpayer selected.”

Washington’s firearms preemption statute also bars Seattle’s tax. Section 9.41.290 of the Revised Code of Washington states,

The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloading components.

And, local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.

Washington law does provide a small number of specific exemptions to the state firearm preemption statute, but these concern local zoning in relating to firearms dealers, carry in certain municipal buildings, and the discharge of firearms.

Despite the plain language of Washington’s preemption statute, in December 2015 King County Superior Court Judge Palmer Robinson upheld Seattle’s tax. NRA and our allies have appealed the court’s decision, and the case now sits with the Washington State Supreme Court.

In advocating for the tax, Burgess and other supporters of the legislation repeatedly cited figures from the City Budget Office that claimed the tax would raise between $300,000 and $500,000 a year. In an email to the Times this week, Burgess confessed, “During its first year, the firearms and ammunition tax payments received by the City were less than $200,000.” It is not clear how much less than $200,000 the city collected.

According to the Times, to come up with the outlandish $300,000-$500,000 figure, the City Budget Office “obtained the annual number of background checks for gun sales in Washington. Then they looked up what percentage of Washington’s licensed gun dealers were in Seattle and used that to guess the number of firearms sales in the city.” In addition to the fact that its analysis was too rudimentary to offer an accurate estimate of gun sales in Seattle, the budget office appears to have made no attempt to predict the impact the significant tax would have on the behavior of gun dealers and buyers.

Making this projection appear even more ridiculous is that the 2016 tax shortfall occurred in a year that witnessed record gun sales nationally and in the Evergreen State. In 2016, there were 713,996 NICS background checks conducted in Washington, whereas the 2015 total was 502,280. Washingtonians were buying plenty of guns in 2016, but as many predicted when the tax was proposed, not in Seattle.

The inaccuracy of City Budget Office’s projections was readily apparent to gun dealers at the time the tax was enacted. Shortly after Burgess proposed the tax, Seattle gun store owner Sergey Solyanik told the Times that he didn’t think the city’s projected revenue was realistic. Solyanik explained that should the tax pass, “I would have almost no margins, so I would pass the tax on to my customers and most people would simply not buy from me… They would go to any of the stores around Seattle — there are a large number — and I would have to close.” Another gun dealer told the Times, “The public won’t buy ammunition in Seattle anymore… When a $10 or $15 box of ammunition costs an extra five bucks, it won’t be worth it.”

In addition to speaking to the press, Solyanik took his concerns about the tax and the foolish revenue projection directly to the city council. On July 15, 2015, Solyanik told the council, “I was horrified when I see the numbers behind this proposal. Seattle is a city that has a vibrant engineering community. We would think that we would be making decisions such as this based on data. And the data that has been submitted by the proponents is completely fake.” Speaking to the council again on the day that it passed the tax, Solyanik warned, “The revenue numbers in this proposal are not real. The city is not going to get any money from this tax. The city instead will lose tax revenue on existing sales.” Solyanik went on to add, “The only real purpose of this legislation is to run gun stores out of the city. I know it, you know it, and the courts will know it.”

In that effort, the city succeeded. Solyanik moved his store outside the city to avoid the tax. According to the Times, the only other dedicated gun store in Seattle has also left. Any honest accounting of the revenue collected from the tax should account for the lost revenue from these stores, and the others whose business has been curtailed by Seattle’s restriction.

Seattle’s high-profile failure has put every other anti-gun locality on notice that this type of taxation scheme is ineffective for raising revenue. Seattle’s embarrassment should make it harder for other localities to hide behind the false claim that these sorts of tax regimes are intended to raise revenue, rather than burden Second Amendment rights.