‘Black Men for Bernie’ Founder to End Democrat ‘Political Slavery’ of Minority Voters… by Campaigning for Trump

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: August 26, 2016


Black Men for Bernie founder Bruce Carter’s mission to restore black communities didn’t end when Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders lost to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. He opposed Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment then because he knew that they didn’t represent the minority communities he engaged in politics to fight for.

After the leak of internal DNC emails, Carter is convinced that the Democratic Party “rigged” the primary against his candidate and that Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Party has no intention of changing the policies that led to the destruction of the communities he’s working to improve.

Bruce Carter still believes that Hillary Clinton is the poster child for the kind of cronyism, corruption, and evil that the Bernie revolution was built to overthrow. He doesn’t believe Hillary Clinton when she labels Donald Trump and his supporters as racists because he knows she falsely labeled her opponents in the primary as sexist “Bernie Bros.” Carter’s preparing to take the experience, knowledge, and contacts his group built during the primary to campaign against Hillary Clinton and for Donald Trump and other Republicans in battleground states across the country.

Read More…

NYCG Radio Episode #182 – 8/26/16 “Alt Right Fight”

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: August 26, 2016

New York City Guns Radio Episode
#182 – Alt Right Fight


The inevitability of Hillary is dying a slow death. The Alt Right is rising and the old right needs to change their diapers.


Music “Corte_Costura” by Urb
Available on the Free Music Archive
Under CC By license

William Bennett: 2nd Amendment ‘Primary Target’ of Potential Clinton Supreme Court

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: August 26, 2016


On August 23 author and Conservative Leaders for Education chairman William Bennett warned that the Second Amendment will be a “primary target” of the Supreme Court if Hillary Clinton is elected to the presidency.

He pointed out that Clinton will “appoint a dyed in the wool liberal to fill Antonin Scalia’s seat, thereby giving liberals a strong five-person majority on the Court.” And that court will then happily seize opportunities to reverse decisions that have bolstered the Second Amendment during the last two decades”–decisions like District of Columbia v Heller(2008) and McDonald v Chicago (2010).

Read More…

‘Black Guns Matter’ Founder: NRA Stood with Blacks When Democrats Attacked in 1960s

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: August 26, 2016

Maj Toure, founder of Black Guns Matter, points out that the National Rifle Association (NRA) stood with blacks during the 1960s when Democrat-comprised groups like the Ku Klux Klan were terrorizing and attacking them.

While speaking to Ebony magazine about his “Black Guns Matter” group, Toure explains that the NRA stood with the “Deacons for Defense,” a group of black men who armed themselves in the 1960s to fight off white terror in the Democrat-controlled south.

Ebony asked him about the NRA and whether the NRA has a responsibility to stand up for the black community. Toure responded first by stressing his belief that the black community has to take care of itself and stop “passing the buck.” But he also stressed that the NRA stood with the black community in the racially turbulent 1960s–a time when few others did.

Read More…

Trump: If Hillary Wants Americans Disarmed, She Should Start With Her Personal Security Force

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: August 26, 2016


During an August 24 speech in Manchester, New Hampshire, Donald Trump spoke of the danger and ruin that has overtaken much of the black community under Democrat policies and he warned that Clinton will make it even worse by disarming law-abiding single black mothers and others via her campaign against the Second Amendment.

He stressed that Clinton does not feel the pain of the black community because she lives a life far removed from them; a life where she is isolated among the one percent while pursuing policies that weigh down the 99 percent–and particularly the poorest among the 99 percent–with unbelievable burdens.

Read More…

Top 10 States for Machine Gun Ownership

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: August 26, 2016


The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) recently released a report highlighting state-by-state ownership of guns regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934.

Firearms and accessories covered under the NFA (hereafter: NFA-registered firearms) include machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers/suppressors, certain explosive devices, etc.

Because the focus is on NFA-registered firearms, the ATF report excludes handguns — which are certainly the firearm of choice in America — and many semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. This may actually provide a better understanding of gun ownership because of these exclusions. After all, if Americans own millions upon millions of less popular guns, who knows how many of the most popular are in their possession?

CBS News provided a summary of the ATF report from which the top 10 states for NFA-related gun ownership emerge.

Read More…

Symbolic Gesture Illustrates Idiocy of Background Check Law

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: August 25, 2016


Initiatives to impose so-called “universal background check” laws are pending in Maine and Nevada, and a similar initiative was passed in Washington State in 2014. In addition to claiming that these laws don’t outlaw private transfers of guns or “criminalize traditional behavior,” proponents also allege the background check laws have “commonsense” and “reasonable exceptions.”

The NRA opposes these measures for many good reasons – that they are misleadingly portrayed as applying to only “sales,” that they accomplish little besides burdening honest gun owners with new fees and paperwork, and because these laws regulate temporary loans, gifts and similar innocuous “transfers” of guns, with few and inadequate exemptions.

The Oregon Firearms Safety Act (OFSA), enacted in 2015, follows the template of such “universal background check” laws and initiatives. The OFSA applies when any change of possession of a gun occurs, even if ownership or title remains the same, by defining a “transfer” as any “delivery of a firearm from a transferor to a transferee, including, but not limited to, the sale, gift, loan or lease of the firearm.” It prohibits a gun sale or “transfer” between persons who are not federally licensed, unless the transaction is completed through a licensed gun dealer. Both parties “must appear in person before a gun dealer, with the firearm, and request that the gun dealer perform a criminal background check on the transferee.”

Even for temporary loans or where no money changes hands, all of the paperwork that applies to a retail sale of a firearm applies. Dealers are authorized to charge fees for “facilitating” these transactions, which means a loan of a gun costs the lender or borrower twice over (once for the loan, and again when the gun is returned). A person who fails to comply with these requirements commits a criminal offense –a felony if the person has a previous conviction.

The OFSA has limited exceptions, including temporary transfers between specified family members (but not in-laws), for law enforcement officers (only “while that person is acting within the scope of official duties”), or to prevent death or serious physical injury (but the threat must be “imminent” and the gun must be returned “immediately”).

The recent case of Jeremy Lucas, the rector of Christ Church Episcopal Parish in Lake Oswego, Oregon, illustrates perfectly the shortcomings of the OFSA and the initiatives on the ballot this fall.

Reverend Lucas, a former lawyer and lobbyist, purchased $3,000 worth of tickets for a softball team’s raffle of an AR-15 rifle, seeking to win the rifle so he could destroy it in a symbolic act. After winning the raffle, Rev. Lucas went through the mandatory background check process at a licensed gun dealer before claiming the gun. He reportedly then gave the gun to a parishioner to store while he decided what to do with it.

Regardless of motive or intent, the “delivery of a firearm” to another person for storage is still a “transfer” governed by the OFSA. According to news reports, local police have asked the Oregon State Police to investigate the matter. If convicted of a misdemeanor violation of the OFSA, Rev. Lucas could face a maximum fine of $6,250 and up to a year in jail.

This isn’t the only instance where a “universal” background check law has backfired. In 2014, the Lynden Pioneer Museum, a small museum in Washington State, decided to return historical firearms loaned for an exhibit to the owners before the exhibit terminated and before the state’s initiative law took effect, pointing to the financial burden of background checks and the lack of any exemption for museums, historical societies and similar entities.

Proponents of the Washington law dismissed these concerns, tut-tutting that “you can’t craft every possibility into every law,” but the museum’s apprehension was echoed by other museums and institutions that borrow or exhibit guns. Similarly, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) issued a guidance concerning “transfers” during hunter education classes. Resting on a convoluted interpretation of the initiative law, this concluded that volunteer instructors were “law enforcement” and exempted from the background check requirements, but only “when in formal volunteer status for WDFW and acting within the scope of their authority.” However, student-to-student transfers of firearms would not qualify under that exemption, prompting a suggestion that instructors use only air rifles or facsimiles that did not meet the definition of a “firearm” under the initiative.

Initiatives for this type of “universal background check” law will be voted on this November in Nevada (Question 1) and Maine (Question 3). Both initiatives have generous financial backing from former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown for Gun Safety” group, and proponents of both claim the measures represent “common-sense” proposals to regulate gun sales, with “reasonable” and adequate exceptions. These proposals, though, ignore reality: the vast majority of criminals who acquire firearms don’t go through legal channels, and won’t bother with a background check. As we’ve said all along, the most substantial impact these laws will have is to turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals.

Brit Gun Amnesty Gone Wrong

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: August 25, 2016


Who Dares Wins. So says the motto of Britain’s most elite special operations unit, the Special Air Service (SAS).  For the SAS, these words are more than just a motto.  Those who serve in the unit are expected to deploy behind enemy lines or infiltrate hostile nations, many times relying only on their individual abilities and cunning to survive.  Yet even the soldiers who make up this elite unit, many of whom have risked all for their country in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere around the globe, are not beyond the wrath of Britain’s anti-gun extremists.

In 2013, Sgt. Danny Nightingale, a decorated SAS veteran with over 18 years of military service, was convicted for possession of a single handgun found in the army-owned house that he shared with another SAS soldier. The prosecution proceeded despite the fact that Sgt. Nightingale was a highly trained soldier who was entrusted with more dangerous weapons by his own government and was actually serving a deployment to Afghanistan when the handgun was discovered. Following Sgt. Nightingale’s court martial, the SAS implemented a “no questions asked” amnesty for soldiers to turn in any contraband arms or equipment.

The unit’s members complied with the amnesty in good faith, perhaps to avoid being the next example for those who would dare to violate Britain’s strict gun laws.  According to a British news source, however, the military commanders who organized the amnesty were alarmed at the amount of surrendered arms and ordered the Royal Military Police to investigate how the surrendered hardware was smuggled past security.

It shouldn’t be surprising that soldiers trained to requisition and smuggle equipment necessary to carry out their missions were able get firearms into their own country.  Nor should it surprise anyone that soldiers in an elite combat unit whose foundational principle is to be more daring than their adversaries would attract the type of soldiers who would take such risks. What is surprising is that the soldiers’ commanders were willing to completely abandon their trust by implementing an aggressive investigation despite the “no questions asked” policy.

At a time when anti-gun politicians in the Untied States encourage us to follow the British example on gun control, it’s enlightening to see just how far England has gone towards anti-gun extremism. In the UK’s anti-gun dystopia, it’s ok for government authorities to lie and entrap their country’s most distinguished soldiers as long as it furthers their extreme anti-gun agenda and its goals.

Gun Controllers Peddle Declining Ownership Myth Amid Massive Growth in Firearms Manufacturers

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: August 25, 2016


While wishful gun control supporters keep peddling the fiction that gun ownership is declining, the firearms industry is growing at an explosive pace in order to meet a growing demand. Earlier this week, Arek Sarkissian of the Naples Daily News wrote a piece highlighting the aggressive growth in licensed gun manufacturers. As the content of the article made clear, interest in firearms is booming and the firearms industry is a vibrant sector of the U.S. economy.

As Sarkissian pointed out, at the outset of Barack Obama’s presidency in 2009, ATF had issued 3,040 active Type 07 Federal Firearms Licenses to manufacture firearms. The most recent ATF data available places the current number of Type 7 FFLs at 10,958. This is a more than 250 percent increase in the number of licensed firearms manufacturers over the past eight years.

Writing for a Florida news outlet, Sarkissian noted that the Sunshine State trails only Texas in number of gun manufacturers. From 2009 to August 2016, the number of Florida gun manufacturers has grown from 155 to 701, while Texas has gone from 219 to 1,146.

However, it’s not only traditionally pro-gun states that have experienced significant growth in firearms manufacturing in recent years. In January 2012, Massachusetts had 97 Type 07 FFLs, it now has 162. Over the same time period, California more than doubled from 229 manufacturers to 520, and Illinois grew from 124 to 187. Despite the best efforts of New York’s politicians, the state went from having 106 manufacturers to 187. Even licensed manufacturers in the anti-gun stronghold of New Jersey nearly doubled from 14 to 27.

Type 07 Firearms Manufacturer FFLs by State, January 2012 and August 2016

State Jan-2012 Aug-2016
 Ala. 77 182
Alaska 42 60
 Ariz. 327 610
 Ark. 101 202
 Calif. 229 520
 Colo. 151 335
Conn. 114 156
 Del. 3 6
 Fla. 314 701
 Ga. 159 320
Hawaii 5 5
Idaho 146 218
 Ill. 124 187
 Ind. 111 200
Iowa 53 117
 Kan. 78 148
 Ky. 81 145
 La. 71 155
Maine 48 88
 Md. 75 127
 Mass. 97 162
Mich. 120 248
Minn. 136 188
Miss. 39 116
Mo. 184 299
Mont. 83 150
Neb. 35 71
Nev. 96 179
N.H. 66 139
N.J. 14 27
N.M. 75 143
N.Y. 106 187
N.C. 206 385
N.D. 4 11
Ohio 220 438
Okla. 167 302
Ore. 196 188
Pa. 226 344
R.I. 9 16
S.C. 88 170
S.D. 42 48
Tenn. 139 242
Texas 556 1146
Utah 130 273
Vt. 29 58
Va. 154 281
Wash. 154 242
W.Va. 38 81
Wis. 124 249
Wyo. 44 87

“Report of Active Firearms Licenses – License Type by State Statistics,” Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, January, 2012 and August 2016,

Along with month after month of record-setting numbers of background checks conducted by the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the incredible growth in firearms manufacturing puts an obvious damper on gun control advocates’ efforts to push their narrative of declining gun ownership. Contrary to these anti-gunners’ deepest desires, Americans’ interest in firearms shows no sign of abating.

The Media Are Lying to Hide Clinton’s Animosity to the Second Amendment

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: August 25, 2016


This is the state of “journalism” today. Members of the media who desperately want Hillary Clinton to be elected president are stooping to unprecedented lows, abandoning all pretenses of impartiality, forfeiting whatever remnant of credibility they might otherwise have, trying to prevent voters from realizing that Hillary Clinton fundamentally opposes the individual right to keep and bear arms.

The Washington Post, to single out one of the worst in this regard, is worried that voters agree with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump that if Clinton were elected, she would “essentially abolish the Second Amendment.”

In the Post’s latest editorial attacking Trump, the newspaper says that Clinton doesn’t want to “essentially abolish the Second Amendment,” but merely supports “rudimentary safety measures,” such as banning “assault weapons and large-capacity magazines” and requiring a background check on every transfer of a firearm between two people who are not firearm dealers.

Knowing that Clinton has also supported licensing gun owners, registering guns, and prohibiting the sale of firearms other than so-called “smart” guns, the newspaper says that Clinton’s presidential anti-gun agenda should also include “requiring all gun owners to be licensed” and requiring “fingerprint readers and other safety devices on guns sold in the United States.”

The reason the Post offers for claiming that Clinton doesn’t want to “essentially abolish the Second Amendment” is that Clinton, while expressing support for a variety of gun control restrictions, including gun bans, hasn’t called for the amendment to be repealed.

However, as Charles C.W. Cooke writes, “As anybody with an elementary understanding of American law comprehends, one does not need to call [a constitutional] convention in order to effectively remove a provision from the Constitution.”

Cooke explains what it would mean, if Clinton were elected and appointed even one anti-gun judge to the Supreme Court, and thereafter the Court overturned the Heller decision and declared that the amendment doesn’t protect an individual right to keep and bear arms.

“Should Hillary get her way, that right would disappear (at least legally), and the government would be freed up to make any policy choice it wished — up to and including a total ban. Who can say with a straight face that this wouldn’t be ‘essentially abolish the Second Amendment’? Who can claim without laughing that a reversal of Heller wouldn’t render the right a dead letter? On this one, Trump is absolutely correct.”

As we noted in October, Clinton has said that the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller(2008) was “wrong,” and as we noted in June, Clinton has also said that it was “a terrible ruling.” When asked on national television “do you believe that . . . an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right,” Clinton refused to answer. She said only that the right “is subject to reasonable regulations,” and implied that “reasonable” would allow for every onerous gun law that came down the pike before Heller, including the handgun bans of the District of Columbia and Chicago, “assault weapon” and magazine bans in several states, and prohibitions on the carrying of firearms for protection, just to name a few.

Politfact North Carolina goes one step further than the Post to protect Clinton. In response to an NRA ad, which says that Clinton “doesn’t believe in your right to keep a gun at home for self-defense,” Politifact says that while “Clinton criticized the [Supreme Court’s] Heller decision,” she “never mentions anything about self-defense or individual rights. Instead, she is criticizing another aspect of the ruling, regarding the government’s ability to regulate guns.” To justify this false and peculiar contention, Politifact—we are not kidding—points out that Clinton opposes the open carrying of rifles in public without a permit.

Maybe Politifact never read the Heller decision. The only other possibility is that it is deliberately lying to its readers. That is because Heller wasn’t concerned with the open carrying of a rifle with a permit or, for that matter, the open or concealed carrying of any firearm with or without a permit in public. Heller was concerned with one thing and one thing alone, stated in the very first sentence of the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in the case: “We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.”

In other words, an outright gun ban.

The Court found that, indeed, the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear loaded handguns in the home for self-defense and struck down D.C.’s handgun ban on that basis. That and nothing less, nothing more, is what the Heller decision is about, and what Hillary Clinton characterizes “wrong” and “terrible.” And just as Donald Trump says, if Clinton were elected president, she would try to shift the balance of the Supreme Court so that it would overturn Heller, declare that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect an individual right, and thus prevent anyone from challenging a gun ban or any other gun control law on Second Amendment grounds.

Voters already know that Hillary Clinton lies. Morally corrupt members of the so-called Fourth Estate who shill for Clinton are doing everything they can to make sure that the voters know Clinton is not alone in that regard. America can and should do better.

Bloomberg-Backed Pennsylvania Attorney General Convicted of Perjury, Criminal Conspiracy (Anti-Gun Sleaze Headed to Prison)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: August 25, 2016


Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen G. Kane resigned this week after a jury found her guilty of perjury, criminal conspiracy, and several other criminal charges relating to the abuse of her position. Gun owners will take particular interest in this conviction, as during her tenure as AG Kane repeatedly demonstrated a marked hostility to the rights of Pennsylvanians, evidently while displaying a personal disregard for the laws she was tasked to uphold.

Kane’s criminal conviction was the end result of a sordid plot to undermine a political rival. The former AG coordinated the leak of confidential grand jury materials to the media in order to discredit the rival, believing this rival had previously used the press to attack her. Specifically, the conviction for perjury was the result of Kane’s attempt to cover up her illicit behavior. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the prosecutor in the case described Kane’s machinations succinctly for the jury, telling them, “She knew it was wrong, she knew it was against the law, and she didn’t care… She did it for revenge. And after that happened, she covered it up with lies.”

Apparently concerned that Kane might continue with her characteristic intrigues in response to her conviction, the judge presiding in the case warned the convict, “There is to be absolutely no retaliation of any kind against any witness in this case, either by your own devices, from your own mouth or your hand, or directing anybody to do anything.” According to an account from the New York Times, the judge went on to threaten to jail Kane if she did not comply. Kane faces up to 28 years in prison, with sentencing to occur October 24.

Kane ran for Attorney General of Pennsylvania in 2012 with the backing of billionaire gun control supporter Michael Bloomberg, who financed a $250,000 ad campaign against Kane’s opponent. Even before taking office she was repaying her billionaire master. In December 2012 Attorney General-Elect Kane added her name to a letter signed by a handful of attorneys general that opposed federal Right-to-Carry reciprocity legislation.

Kane came to the attention of many gun rights supporters in 2013, when she unilaterally halted the recognition of Pennsylvanians’ non-resident Florida Concealed Weapon Licenses. The move forced Florida permit-holding Pennsylvania residents who wanted to continue to exercise their Right-to-Carry to acquire a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms. 

Aside from the burden that this placed on several thousand individuals who merely sought to exercise their Right–to-Carry, Kane’s unilateral move was well outside her authority, as described in Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Carry statute. Illustrating this fact is that prior to Kane’s decree, gun control supporters in the Pennsylvania State Assembly repeatedly sought to address the matter through misguided, but legitimate, legislation.

Kane has the ignominious distinction of joining former California State Sen. Leland Yee and a retinue of Bloomberg group mayors, on a growing list of public officials who have sought to impose new restrictions on the rights of ordinary citizens while personally flouting the law.

According to the Inquirer, Kane told reporters, “I try to do the best job I can every day. And I have no regrets. I hope that people see that we’ve done our best… And, you know, sometimes the price is high.” It will be interesting to see how such recalcitrance plays in sentencing.

New York Times Issues Ridiculous Anti-NRA Screed

Categories: Activism, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: August 25, 2016


At the same time establishment newspapers are openly abandoning their usual façade of impartiality in their news coverage, their editorial boards have been working overtime to elect Hillary Clinton. However, few have been doing Robby Mook and David Brock’s work for them quite like the New York Times, as evidenced by a ridiculous pro-Clinton/anti-NRA screed that appeared in the August 14 edition of the paper.

Titled, “Donald Trump Courts the Gun Zealots,” the editorial is laden with hyperbole, unsupported claims, and outright falsehoods. Moreover, the Times’ decision to label NRA as “zealots” should strike many as ironic coming from a “news” outlet that used its front page to advocate the undeniably extreme position of confiscating Americans’ lawfully owned firearms.

As there may still be some under the misimpression that the Old Gray Lady contains “all the news that’s fit to print,” a handful of the editorial’s more outlandish passages should be addressed.

A quick myth/fact comparison:

NYT MYTH:   [T]he epidemic of gun carnage that claims more than 30,000 lives in the United States each year…

FACT: This bit of sleight of hand comes directly out of the gun control lobby’s playbook and misleads the public into believing that gun homicides are far greater than they are.

Out of the 30,000 figure, two thirds of these deaths are attributable to suicide. While certainly unfortunate, the Times’ inclusion of these deaths in their purposefully incendiary term “gun carnage” gives the misleading impression to the unsuspecting reader that there are in excess of 30,000 homicides carried out with firearms each year. The Times is following the lead of gun control advocates that lump these self-inflicted injuries into the term “gun violence” in order to deceive the public as to the scale of homicides perpetrated with firearms.

Of course, in normal usage the terms “carnage” or “violence” give the impression of harm inflicted upon others. To illustrate the absurdity of how gun controllers and the Times use these terms, ask yourself if any reasonable individual would describe other leading methods of suicide as rope violence, blade violence, pill violence, water violence, car violence, or carbon monoxide violence. 

While quick to use the term “epidemic,” the Times failed to properly contextualize this passage for the reader by explaining that according to the most recent available date, violent crime is at a 44-year low and the murder rate is at an all-time low.

NYT MYTH:  [Clinton] offers a wide list of lifesaving proposals including restoration of the assault weapons ban…

FACT: The Times correctly pointed out Clinton’s support for the reinstatement of the 1994 ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, but fails to acknowledge that government-funded research found the ban to be ineffective rather than “lifesaving.”

In pointing out the difficulty of measuring any effect of the 1994 ban, a 1997 Department of Justice-funded study noted that prior to the ban, “the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.” A 2004 update to the study determined “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence,” and, “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”

This point was reiterated in a 2013 Department of Justice National Institute of Justice memo, which noted, “Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence.” The memo also made clear that even if the Times’ goal of confiscation was successfully carried out, “a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.”

Further, aside from conjecture, there is little to support the notion that a ban on these types of firearms or certain types of magazines would have an effect on individual instances of violence. Following the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech, then-Governor of Virginia and current Clinton vice-presidential running mate Tim Kaine formed the Virginia Tech Review Panel to study the tragedy. Addressing the topic of so-called “high capacity” magazines, the panel’s report stated, “The panel also considered whether the previous federal Assault Weapons Act of 1994 … would have made a difference in the April 16 incidents. The law lapsed after 10 years, in October 2004, and had banned clips or magazines with over 10 rounds. The panel concluded that 10-round magazines that were legal would have not made much difference in the incident.”

NYT MYTH:  Research shows the folly of [NRA’s] “concealed carry” campaign to arm millions of ordinary citizens… Far from stopping mass shooters in their tracks, these gun owners have been shooting themselves, family members and others.

FACT: Here, the Times flippantly disparages the more than 13 million law-abiding Americans who choose to exercise their Right-to-Carry, based on a handful of accounts of permit holder misconduct.

In reality, permit holders, as a group, are extraordinarily law-abiding. We know this because certain jurisdictions make available a variety of statistics concerning Right-to-Carry permit holders, including the numbers of permits that have been revoked. Analysis of this data has repeatedly shown that that permit holders, on the whole, are more law-abiding than the general public. In fact, analysis of permit revocations from Florida and Texas conducted by economist John Lott found that Right-to-Carry permit holders are more law-abiding than law enforcement.

In making its derogatory claim, the Times cites Violence Policy Center and their flawed collection of instanceswhere individuals who happen to have a Right-to-Carry permit have engaged in criminal behavior, or committed suicide. In VPC’s bizarre compilation of anecdotes, the wrongdoer’s criminal conduct often bears no relation whatsoever to their status as a permit holder.

Obviously, a Right-to-Carry permit would not be a factor in any instance where a person took their own life. VPC also lists incidents that took place in private residences, where a permit to carry a firearm would not be required. Other cases involve the use of long-guns unsuitable to be carried concealed, thus making the permit irrelevant. VPC even lists two incidents where an individual strangled their victim to death. Predictably, the Times chose to completely ignore the numerous documented instances where permit holders have defended themselves and other from criminal violence.

In a further bit of deception, the Times inaccurately described VPC as a “gun safety group,” in order to hide the organization’s fringe nature. While defining VPC simply as a gun control group would have sufficed, an even more accurate way to describe the organization would be to refer to them as handgun prohibitionists. Contrary to the moderation implied by “gun safety,” in a document titled “Cease Fire: a Comprehensive Strategy to Reduce Firearms Violence,” the group contended that “Handguns should be banned from future sale.”

NYT MYTH:  Why can gun-show customers evade the federal background checks that other gun buyers must undergo?

FACT:  Such evasion doesn’t take place. Contrary to the gun control lobby’s efforts to demonize gun shows, federal law pertaining to background checks is the same at gun shows as it is anywhere else.

Under federal law, gun show patrons are subject to the same background check requirements as any other gun buyer. However, a better way to understand this issue is that gun sellers are subject to the same federal requirements to conduct background checks regardless of location.

Federal law requires those who are “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms to acquire a Federal Firearms License and conduct background checks on those they sell to, whether the sale takes place at the dealer’s place of business or a gun show. A private individual who sometimes transfers firearms from his personal collection is not required to conduct background checks. This is true whether she is trading firearms with a friend or relative at private residence, transferring a firearm pursuant to a notice on her church bulletin board, or if she chooses to rent a table at a local gun show.

Whether or not a customer is required to undergo a background check is dependent upon who the customer is transacting with, not where a firearm transfer takes place.

Further, the Times’ emphasis on gun shows is misplaced, as gun shows are not a significant source of firearms for criminals. In 1997 and 2004 the Bureau of Justice Statistics surveyed state prison inmates about the source of the firearms they possessed at the time of their offense. In both surveys, less than 1 percent of inmates cited “gun show” as the source of their firearms.

NYT MYTH:  Mr. Trump surely has views on whether firearm makers truly deserve blanket protection from damage lawsuits, an extraordinary shield enjoyed by no other industry.

FACT:  The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) does not provide firearms manufacturers with blanket protection from liability suits. Further, the firearms industry is not the only industry to enjoy the type of protection the PLCAA affords.

The Times should know better than to traffic in this falsehood, considering this issue received significant attention during the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. In an October 2015 statement, which the Times appears to have dutifully parroted, Clinton incorrectly claimed that the gun industry is the “only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability.” Clinton repeatedly used this issue to attack opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders, who espoused the reasonable position that firearms manufacturers should not be held responsible for the criminal acts of third parties.

In May, constitutional scholar and law professor David Kopel addressed Clinton’s inaccurate PLCAA statements with a comprehensive explanation of exact contours of the PLCAA. Further, Politifact managed to conduct a reasoned analysis of Clinton’s October 2015 claim and rated it false.

As Kopel made clear, the PLCAA merely prohibits lawsuits against gun makers for damages resulting from the third-party criminal misuse of their firearms. The PLCAA does not protect members of the gun industry from products liability suits for manufacturing or design defects, or certain types of negligent conduct. Moreover, this type of protection is not unique to the gun industry. Citing several legal scholars, the Politifact piece pointed out that federal law bars torts against vaccine manufacturers, and similarly limits suits against other industries.

NYT MYTH:  Rejection of Mr. Trump at the ballot box would also mean a decisive vote against N.R.A. and the human destruction its agenda continues to inflict upon the nation.

FACT: Here the Times’ hyperbole hit a crescendo, and revealed just how out of touch these Manhattanites are from the average American. Despite the paper’s decades-long efforts, the public at large doesn’t agree with the Times’ deranged assessment of NRA and our mission.

An October 2015 Gallup poll asked respondents, “Is your opinion of the National Rifle Association very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable or very unfavorable?” 58-percent of those polled answered either “very favorable” or “mostly favorable.” A June 2016 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll sure to bristle the Times’ editorial staff found that NRA’s favorability well outpaced that of their beloved Clinton. NRA’s favorability was found to be 9 percentage points higher than the widely-untrusted candidate, while Clinton’s unfavorable numbers dwarfed NRA’s by 19 points.

As evidenced by the latest edition of a long-running Gallup poll, the American public’s trust in the media has been trending downwards, and currently rests at a “historical low.” Given the establishment press’ flagrant unwillingness to accurately report or comment on the 2016 presidential race, epitomized by the Times’ editorial and other similar poppycock, we have no doubt that this trend will continue apace.

The Washington Post Fails Again (Liars Twist Words to Support Hillary Anti-Gun Agenda)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: August 25, 2016


It’s embarrassing how shamelessly the Washington Post is shilling for Hillary Clinton nowadays.

On Monday, the Post’s “fact-checker,” Glenn Kessler, said that the NRA’s new TV ad is wrong, in claiming that Clinton “doesn’t believe in your right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.”

Kessler took his shot at the NRA after we outlined how the Post’s editors were disingenuous, at best, in their attempt to fool the public into believing that Clinton is anything but a staunch gun control extremist.

Kessler’s reasoning wasn’t just dubious, it was devoid of merit. On the one hand, he acknowledged that NRA’s ad is based upon Clinton’s statement that the Supreme Court is “wrong on the Second Amendment” and he admitted that Clinton indeed spoke those words. He even agreed that Clinton might, if elected president, nominate Supreme Court justices who would vote to overturn Heller.

Strangely, Kessler said NRA’s ad is wrong because Clinton supports an “assault weapons” ban, opposes the open carrying of long guns, supports expanding firearm-related background checks, wants more categories of people to be prohibited from possessing firearms, and wants to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (which, Kessler, like Clinton, falsely claims protects negligent members of the gun industry).

But, Kessler says, “None of these proposals would restrict a person from buying a gun to keep at home for self-defense.”

So his argument is that Clinton surely wants more gun control, but not that kind of gun control.

But that is an absurd argument. The fact that Clinton supports lots of gun control restrictions doesn’t prove, one way or the other, whether she believes people have the right to have handguns at home for self-defense, or what she means when she says the Supreme Court is “wrong on the Second Amendment.”

Kessler’s and the Post’s phony-baloney, dishonest dispute about Clinton’s stance on those issues could be laid to rest, once and for all, if the Post or someone else in the media would ask Clinton to state precisely how she thinks the Supreme Court is “wrong on the Second Amendment.”

Clinton might say that she has already answered this question. Politifact has reported, “The Clinton campaign previously told us Clinton ‘believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft common sense laws to keep their residents safe.’”

However, that’s not a legitimate answer. Heller wasn’t concerned with whether states and cities could impose various gun control restrictions. In fact, the Court addressed this question directly, by stating, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Once again, let’s be clear about this, because Clinton will continue to shift, duck, dive, and slide around the issue for the remainder of the campaign.  As is her well-worn pattern, she will refuse to be as honest with the voters as she was to big donors at her swanky fundraiser where her “wrong” comment was recorded.

What Heller was concerned with, and all nine justices said so, was whether the Second Amendment protects the right to have a handgun at home for protection. The majority opinion said, “We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution” and concluded, “In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” 

Not only that, the four dissenting justices said that the case was concerned with “whether a District of Columbia law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment.”

So, if the Court was “wrong,” it was “wrong” about keeping a gun at home for self-defense, not “wrong” because of anything else Clinton wants to suggest is a “reasonable” or “common sense” restriction.

Kessler and the Post know all of this.  Simply put, Clinton will say anything to get elected and the Post will say anything to help her do so.

It’s no wonder that a Pew poll from July found that 74 percent of Americans believe that the media are biased in their reporting.  How soon the other 26 percent figure out the obvious is anyone’s guess, but we’re confident Kessler and his colleagues at the Washington Post will continue to chip away at the stubborn few.

Libturd Professor: Take Granny’s Gun!

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: August 25, 2016


Gun ban advocates, knowing their goals aren’t especially popular with the American people, have in recent years tried to couch their agenda in more innocuous-sounding terms. They don’t want to ban all guns, they’ll say, they just want to keep them out of the wrong hands. But once you start paying close attention to their claims, you realize that the “wrong hands” might be closer and more numerous than you think … and might even include the more senior members of your family.

Breitbart News recently pointed out that an “expert” who works at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (BSPH) is sounding the alarm about firearm possession amongst the elderly. Perhaps not coincidentally, that “expert” also claims that firearm ownership is most common in America for those aged 50 or older.

Dr. Shannon Frattaroli of the Bloomberg School told New America Media that the typical gun control focus on crime and mass shootings leaves out the risks of firearm possession among older Americans. “[A]ny conversation about guns has to include a conversation [about] gun ownership among older adults,” she said. “There’s definitely more to be done on that issue in the United States.”

Frattaroli believes depression, frailty, dementia, grandchildren, and the risks of accidental shootings all counsel against senior citizens keeping firearms in their homes, as she claims, “they would harm someone coming into the home who’s not there for a home invasion, someone there for a legitimate purpose like a caretaker.”

One solution, the New America Media article suggests, is “competency tests for gun owners,” which would be similar to “requiring motorists to prove their proficiency behind the wheel as they grow older.” Another, according to Frattaroli, is allowing a concerned “loved one or neighbor” to obtain a court order to disarm gun owners whom the petitioner considers a risk to themselves or others.

It takes a true gun control extremist to paint Grandma with the same brush as others who are categorically prohibited from possessing firearms, such as felons or those who are addicted to illegal drugs like heroin or methamphetamine. 

And while Dr. Frattaroli’s views may seem extreme, she is far from alone in suggesting the aged have a dark side that weighs against trusting them with firearms. Even the Social Security Administration, as we’ve reported, is looking to get into the gun control business by reporting certain of its beneficiaries to the FBI as “mental defectives.”

But lest gun control advocates like Dr. Frattaroli be accused of age discrimination, college students fair no better in their eyes. A spirited classroom discussion is likely to provoke murderous rage, they insist. And if academic debate doesn’t lead to homicide, they argue, binge drinking or other degenerate behavior surely will. 

What about adults with children? Shouldn’t someone responsible enough to oversee the well-being of another human being be responsible enough for possessing an inanimate object like a firearm? No, gun control advocates argue. The safest course is for them to forgo guns as well, because the children will find them.  

Perhaps single women, then? No, gun controllers will tell you, because they’re too weak to hold onto the gun and too incapable to use it if they do. They’d be better off with whistles to summon help.  

Even in an age of advanced political correctness, apparently no stereotype is too offensive to be employed in the pursuit of banning guns. And when it comes to keeping firearms out of the hands of “dangerous people,” even the Bridge Club or the Shuffleboard League could prove just a little too high-risk to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

New Jersey Issues Landlord Concealed Carry Permit – After a Three-Year Battle!

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: August 25, 2016

After dealing with years of life-threatening situations from violent gang members in Newark, and battling almost three years in New Jersey’s courts for his basic constitutional and human rights, Albert Almeida [above] has been issued his concealed carry permit.

Albert, a father of two girls, owns a property management company which collects rent from many buildings in Newark and surrounding areas. After having his life threatened several times by tenants who were known gang members and convicted violent felons, he sought a conceal carry permit which requires approval from his local police chief and a Superior Court Judge.

After his permit application was denied due to not satisfying the albatross of justifiable need, he filed a lawsuit against the State.

Read More…

Training Schedule

08/27/16 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

09/10/16 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

09/24/16 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

10/08/16 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

10/22/16 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

11/05/16 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

NYCG Radio

Current Episode

"Alt Right Fight"

#182 - Alt Right Fight

Trump 2016!

The only candidate with the vision to save this country and the BALLS to actually do it. Anti-gun clowns, illegal aliens, PC bed-wetters, Marxist scumbags and other assorted libturds NEED NOT APPLY. Regular Americans can help Donald Make America Great Again!

Real Gun Facts
Discount NRA Membership
Join The NRA and Get $10 off a Yearly Membership!
Donate to the NYC PBA Widows’ & Children’s Fund

The PBA Widows’ and Children’s Fund, Inc. (the “Fund”) provides aid and assistance to widows, widowers and eligible dependents of police officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty.

If you would like to donate to this 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization, please make a check payable to:

New York City PBA Widows and Children's Fund

And send it to:

Michael Morgillo

Patrolmen's Benevolent Association

125 Broad Street

11th Floor

New York, NY 10004-2400

Welcome , today is Tuesday, August 30, 2016