Meet Michael Bloomturd: Social Scientist (By Mark Chesnut)

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 27, 2015

Michael Bloomberg Delivers Final Major Address Of His Administration

Gun-ban advocates rant and rave about the need for more “research” on what they like to refer to as the “growing trend of gun violence”—publicly funded research, of course. Their calls to renew funding for the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to conduct anti-gun research in the name of medical science, just like in the bad old days before Congress cut that funding, become shriller as time passes.

In fact, just last year Sen. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., introduced federal legislation that would have provided $10 million a year for six years, beginning in 2015, for the CDC to conduct such research.

Considering the fact that anti-gun groups like Everytown for Gun Safety have become experts at creating their own “research”—and we use the term lightly, since these “studies” always result in guns and gun owners being bad—it’s a wonder they even care about CDC funding. Why have the CDC go to years of trouble to come to a faulty conclusion, when Michael Bloomberg’s astroturf group can just make something up in a few hours, call it “research” or a “study,” and watch the media run wild with it?

Consider, for example, last summer’s Everytown report on school shootings. Titled, “School Shootings in America Since Sandy Hook,” Everytown reported that as of June 10, 2014, “at least 74” such incidents had occurred. And the media ran with it.

The list’s invocation of Sandy Hook and its accompanying photograph of a grief-stricken woman suggest that it documents only crimes similar to Sandy Hook, e.g., the murder of multiple students and/or teachers in their schools. That suggestion, however, was false.

Everytown’s list stretched the parameters of the term “school shooting” past any commonly understood notion of that term. The list included crimes—some involving gangs—that simply happened to take place on or even near school grounds; incidents where no one was injured; suicides where nobody else was threatened; accidental discharges; at least one victim who may have been shot off-site and stumbled onto school grounds; defensive force; and even an off-campus crime spree that ended with police shooting the perpetrator after he ran onto the grounds of a college.

In fact, based upon news reports concerning the episodes on Everytown’s list, 46 of the incidents (62 percent) involved perpetrators who were not associated with the schools, 25 (34 percent) had no victims who were associated with the schools, seven incidents involved gunshots but no injuries, seven others were suicides with no other victims, five involved accidental non-fatal shootings and two were apparent acts of self-defense.

Of course, any “shooting” is a serious matter, and we do not mean to minimize the gravity of these incidents, whatever their details. Nevertheless, Everytown used emotionally manipulative tactics to portray these incidents as something they were not.

And don’t think that’s the only such example. Just last month, Everytown released results of another “study”—this one purportedly on children who have caused injuries or deaths with “unsecured” guns. The idea here was apparently to make an impression with staggering numbers and by putting a human story behind each incident. But the group’s report, again, was bogus.

A Breitbart article by AWR Hawkins broke down some of the bizarre inclusions on the list, many of which simply depicted hunting or target-shooting accidents that did not produce life-threatening injuries. The guns in this category could in no way be said to have been “unsecured.” It was the infamous school shooting list all over again: When Everytown “researchers” don’t like the real numbers, they have no qualms about inventing their own.

And we’ve not yet mentioned another popular ploy by anti-gunners—including those at Everytown—to cook up statistics to make firearms seem less acceptable by comparing gun-related deaths to those from motor vehicle accidents.

The faults in the comparison, and conclusions drawn, are far too many to address here. But suffice it to say that comparing accidental vehicular deaths to the grand total of suicides, murders, defensive homicides by private citizens, legal intervention homicides by law enforcement officers, and the relatively smaller number of firearm accident deaths is truly apples to oranges.

In truth, from 1981 through 2013 (the first and last year of data reported by the federal government), deaths due to accidents involving firearms decreased a whopping 73 percent, while those due to accidents involving motor vehicles decreased 31 percent. You can read NRA-ILA’s detailed examination of the guns versus cars propaganda here.

Additionally, the Bloomberg-funded group’s recently released report from an “investigation” in Oregon was also nothing more than conjecture and half-truths. Results from that “study” allegedly proved that 1,300 Oregon criminals illegally “obtained” guns through online sources.
Yet no matter how you reviewed the data, one fact stood out—the statistics were completely made up. No guns were bought in the investigation. No guns were sold in the investigation. No criminals “obtained” guns in the investigation.

The bogus study provided additional proof that gun-banners simply can’t make an honest argument to justify more restrictive gun-control legislation.

Interestingly enough, Everytown doesn’t have enough faith in its own statistics to defend them publicly. Last month C-SPAN planned to host a debate on America’s shifting gun views featuring John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center and Everytown’s Ted Alcorn. Alcorn backed out, claiming: “We welcome debate. … When there is a credible scientist, someone who wants to have a real, constructive conversation, we will be there.”

Ironically, Lott is about as credible as they come. A Ph.D., Lott formerly served as chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission, has held position at several prestigious academic institutions, and is a respected author and columnist.

In truth, Everytown has to cook up its own statistics because real studies prove just the opposite of the so-called “facts” the group likes to publicize. A recent survey of economists found that a majority believes guns are more likely to be used for self-defense than for crime.

The survey was conducted by Lott and Gary Mauser, professor emeritus at Simon Fraser University. Mauser and Lott suspected previous surveys on the attitudes of academics toward armed self-defense might be biased, due to both the pool of respondents (in that case, sociologists and public health researchers) and the way certain questions were phrased.

This poll targeted economists who had published gun research in peer-reviewed journals, ensuring that respondents had enough background knowledge to possess an informed opinion. Mauser also took care to word questions as neutrally as possible. His results—that about 83 percent believe there is a net benefit to gun ownership—are in line with the results of recent Gallup polls, which found that roughly two-thirds of Americans believe guns make homes safer.

Even Everytown’s favorite talking point—that more guns equals more crime—has also been repeatedly disproven, including by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s very own statistics. Since 1982, the number of guns in American hands has increased by over 80 million. During that same period, according to the FBI, the U.S. homicide rate has fallen by over half.

We can only hope that someday the so-called “mainstream” media will actually pay enough attention to realize that Everytown’s statistics aren’t worth the newsprint they waste on them. Should that ever happen, though, Bloomberg has hatched a new plan.

Everytown recently announced that it is launching a “news” service devoted entirely to gun-grabber propaganda. We wish we could say we’re looking forward to the ridiculous misinformation that is sure to ensue, but the reality is that the content will mostly be hideous crimes—all spun to convince us that the firearms involved are somehow more responsible than the humans pulling the trigger.

Rest assured that we at A1F Daily will continue to be here—day in, and day out—countering Everytown’s bogus studies as the group continues to push them on the public.

Gun Control’s Branding Problem (By Clay Turner)

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 27, 2015

Gun Control’s Branding Problem

If gun control was a brand, it would be The Sharper Image.

That company’s way-cool gadgets and sleek stores once were the definition of high-tech (remember that catchphrase?), making them the coolest kid in the mall. They sold shiny, remote-controlled gadgets at premium (at least to a college kid like me) prices that solved problems you didn’t even know you had. They were hot before hot was even a thing.

The fall began when we learned that Sharper Image’s indispensable air ionizer actually pumped our designer living rooms full of noxious ozone. Lawsuits followed, and stores closed. I remember seeing a TV spot featuring founder Richard Thalheimer, the man who created it all, as pitchman. He came across as the creepiest guy I’d never want to have dinner with. “Hot” had lost its cool.

If you consider gun control as a brand of advocacy, you can catch a whiff of Sharper Image in it. The hot new cause (or brand) for those who believed their thinking didn’t stink, gun control had everything going for it in the 1960s and ’70s. It was driven by high-profile assassinations, benefited from the national anti-war/peace movement, and had the support of the nation’s major daily papers, monthly magazines and the three-and-a-half channels that constituted a TV monopoly.

But in the Bill Clinton era, the brand began to lose its mojo. Gun control had brought us sparkling products like the Waiting Period for gun purchases, Background Checks and the Assault Weapons Ban—and politicians bought them. Waiting on its shelves were shiny new bans on handguns, Saturday night specials and cop-killer bullets, too.

Americans, however, didn’t buy them, because the stuff we had already purchased was starting to smell funny.

First, we learned that only law-abiding citizens submit to background checks, while criminals steal their guns or buy them from other criminals. Then we learned that “assault weapons” worked just like Grandpa’s 100-year-old semi-auto shotgun, and when the FBI told us the ban had no effect on gun crime, politicians caught the scent and declined to renew it. Perhaps they were both early examples of, “We had to pass the bill to find out what was in the bill.”

So-called cop-killer bullets turned out to be most hunting rifle rounds. Saturday night specials were nothing more than affordable handguns. The assault weapons ban was not only a hoax; it was also a ruse to ban every handgun, rifle and shotgun with a semi-automatic action. Smelling a rat, we began buying handguns like they were hotcakes, and we made the AR-15 the most popular rifle in America.

And their losing streak continued. Al Gore for president. John Kerry for president. HellerMcDonald.

In response, gun-control groups began to exhibit all the classic signs of brand panic. They changed their names to distance themselves from past failed products. Handgun Control Inc. became The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which then adopted the nickname The Brady Campaign so it could easily be written on a check. The National Coalition to Ban Handguns became the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. The Million Moms For Gun Control became the Million Mom March somewhere along the line (or vice versa). Unable to garner even a fraction of that many moms, it then morphed into Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. Michael Bloomberg then acquired the Moms brand, after all but abandoning his Mayors Against Illegal Guns in the face of departing mayors. To keep up the momentum, he folded both into a whole new brand, Everytown for Gun Safety, which doesn’t involve every town, and is not focused on gun safety.

Just when things looked darkest, Newtown happened—a national nightmare so incomprehensible that it shook every American, whether gun owner or not. Americans began to feel they’d been sold a bill of goods, and looked at the gun-control movement’s other products like they contained lead paint.

The gun-control movement saw daylight, and ran to it. In the middle of that opening was a microphone, and standing behind it was the most powerful man in the world, who welcomed the gun-control brand right into the White House. Every newspaper, every magazine and every TV anchor screamed for gun owners’ heads, and none dared to debate them in their righteous time slot.

Yet gun control lost that one, too. Congress demurred. States revolted. Voters voted.

In fairness, the gun-control movement had lost that battle before it even began. Just as if they were choosing a family minivan, Americans had done their research and distrusted the specious claims, false data and empty promises. Brands die when they lie: Once that trust bond with brand loyalists is broken, it’s nearly impossible to regain it. Gun control had promised us safety, but couldn’t deliver. Consumers may be fooled once, but they’re brutal on brands when betrayed.

Today, the classic signs of brand desperation continue to accelerate. Unable to get the Center for Disease Control to do it for them, Everytown publishes “studies” so thin on credibility that they serve as their own opposition research. Shannon Watts of Moms Demand Action barely rises from the pavement before she trips over another falsehood. Bloomberg dismisses recalled state senators as being from districts “where I don’t think there’s roads.” Moms Demand manipulates photos of its rallies to hide paltry attendance. The gun-control brand has little grassroots support: Without an infusion of cash from billionaire investors, it likely would be on the trash heap.

In contrast stands a brand of advocacy called the National Rifle Association, which has never been, nor ever will be, the National Rifle, Handgun and Shotgun Association or the National March For Things That Propel Projectiles. For 144 years, the NRA has stood for the protection, enjoyment and pursuit of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

In the branding world, that’s called “focus.” And a brand that loses focus will eventually begin to smell like it is past its “use by” date.

The Rise Of The Armed Citizen (By Ginny Simone)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 27, 2015

The Rise Of The Armed Citizen

Those who push restrictive gun laws would have you think guns are only the tools of criminals, and that law-abiding citizens never use them in defense of self and others. In fact, Shannon Watts, head of the Michael Bloomberg-funded Moms Demand Action, said just that in a television interview last year.

“This has never happened,” Watts said, referring to NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre’s statement that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. “Data shows it doesn’t happen.”

Of course, we know the opposite is true. Armed, law-abiding citizens use firearms in self-defense many times each day throughout the nation. And gun rights advocates love hearing the stories. That’s why “The Armed Citizen®” column ranks as the most popular section of this magazine.

The story of Mark Vaughan, NRA Life member and chief operating officer of Vaughan Foods in Moore, Okla., must give Watts and other gun-ban advocates a tremendous headache. Vaughan, as you’ll likely recall, is the armed citizen who ran to his truck, grabbed his AR-15 rifle and shot a crazed attacker who had already beheaded one woman and was cutting on his next victim.

Not wanting to draw attention to himself, Vaughan had been unwilling to speak to the media since the attack. He recently decided to grant me an exclusive interview about what happened that fateful day.“Others who were right there at the time of the initial attack were kicking, hitting, throwing chairs, books. And they were unable to stop him. He was determined, and he chased several folks off with a knife.”

Incidentally, Vaughan is also a reserve deputy sheriff for the Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Department, a fact unknown to many working at Vaughan Foods on Sept. 24, 2014. On that day, however, he was just another American, going about his normal daily duties—until emergency alarms sounded. He didn’t yet know that Alton Nolen, a recently fired employee, had already beheaded 54-year-old grandmother Colleen Hufford and was continuing his attack.

“I immediately exited my office,” Vaughan said. “I went down to my personal vehicle where I keep an AR-15 rifle. I donned a vest that said County Sheriff on it and ran about 130 yards to the customer service area. It was a bad scene. Many people were exiting the building; people were crying and screaming. It was a very chaotic situation.

When he entered the building, Vaughan couldn’t believe the carnage he saw. But he knew he had to do something to stop the attack.

“When I first arrived down that hallway, I could see the knife raised above his head and strokes with the knife, blows with the knife,” he said. “I yelled at him to stop and he did. He took a few steps toward me and then disappeared around another hallway. I proceeded after him.”

Vaughan said the attack occurred during a shift change. Consequently, there was a lot of activity in the area, with employees coming and going.

“Suddenly he reappeared, running at me and others near me at full speed with the knife still in hand, blood on his arm and on the knife,” Vaughan said. “I yelled a couple of times for him to stop, and he did not. And just at about 12 to 15 feet from me, I fired three rounds. He collapsed to the floor [with] the knife still in his hand. I stopped the threat.”

For his quick, efficient actions, many—including this publication—have called Vaughan a hero. Looking back, he still doesn’t consider himself a hero, although he admits he might have saved many more lives with his action.

“I do not view myself as a hero at all,” he said. “I did what I had to do to protect the folks that work for me to stop this atrocity.“When I owned the company, I allowed concealed-carry holders to carry in the facility and to keep firearms in their cars,” Vaughan said. “My opinion is a gun-free zone just simply makes it harder for the rest of us to protect ourselves.”

“But I have no doubt that Traci Johnson would likely be dead today, as well as others he was targeting. He would not have quit, had a firearm not been involved here by someone who is trained to use it. The consequences, though bad enough, would have been much greater. My involvement was a very thin slice of time, less than three minutes. But afterward it really hit home, the heinous nature of this crime. We have some people that are not back to work; many are still in counseling, very understandably.”

In fact, Johnson, the second victim whose throat was cut but who was saved by Vaughan’s quick response, has seen her life changed forever. She was in the women’s locker room when she heard the worst scream she’d heard in her entire life.

“When I first saw him [Nolen], it was just pure evil,” she said. “His eyes looked like they could just pop out of his head. I see this knife, bloody knife in his hand, and I just froze. And he ran after me. The next thing you know he started attacking me and started slicing my neck.”

Interestingly, according to Vaughan the current ownership of the company doesn’t allow employees to carry firearms during working hours. There’s no restriction to them being in personal vehicles. They do allow armed security, although on the day of the incident there was no armed security on site.

“There are several [right-to-carry permit holders] here, and some involved directly in this event who have since received their concealed-carry permit and I know are practicing. It’s worth every penny.”

Vaughan believes Nolen was probably aware of the “no carry” policy before he started his knife attack, which might have emboldened the vicious murderer.

“He had gone through orientation here and the training that’s required before a full-time employee starts here,” he said. “I’m sure he was apprised of the policies about guns.”

Vaughan believes the armed citizen is America’s first line of defense. Even though he is involved in law enforcement as a reserve deputy, he knows the police can’t always get there in time when the chips are really down.

“You cannot take the attitude they [attacks] are not going to happen to you or to your workplace,” he said. “We need to know they will happen with more frequency moving forward.”

“I believe that firearms should be part of that strategy by qualified and trained individuals. And to have those people allowed to have firearms in the building, have access to firearms. We cannot rely on law enforcement to be there the instant they’re needed. That’s not reality.”“Whether you’re civilian or law enforcement, it’s something that you need to take seriously,” [Vaughan] said. “And by that, I mean you need to be out at the range shooting, getting training. There’s lots of good training available out there. It’s worth every penny.

Vaughan also believes Americans should feel a sense of responsibility toward their fellow man. That’s only natural. But without being properly equipped—in this case, with a firearm—living up to that responsibility can be very difficult.

“When you’re faced with the violence that our team here and I faced on that day, it’s not about a ban on a certain thing,” he said, addressing firearm bans. “It’s about that innate responsibility we have to protect those around us and to protect ourselves. And anything that restricts that is going against that thing that we hold most dear.”

While a strong proponent of Right-to-Carry by average citizens, Vaughan says all who choose to carry or keep a firearm for self-defense have a duty to properly train with that firearm. Because, as he learned last September, when the situation is dire, training takes over.

“Whether you’re civilian or law enforcement, it’s something that you need to take seriously,” he said. “And by that, I mean you need to be out at the range shooting, getting training. There’s lots of good training available out there. It’s worth every penny.”

“The stories you hear about tunnel vision are true. I mean, everything for me shut down except my focus on that individual. I have gone through scenarios in my mind, but there’s no thinking or no opening textbooks. My training took over.”

Johnson, who still bears the scars—both physical and mental—from the attack, sums up the story well. She has since left the company because she has flashbacks just going to the crime scene, but she has said she will always be grateful that Vaughan had his rifle in his vehicle—and that he knew how to use it when the time came.

“Mr. Vaughan saved my life, and I thank God for him every day,” she said. “You know, I say that he’s my hero, he’s an inspiration to me. If he wouldn’t have been there, I’d probably not be here today, and Nolen would have probably killed some other people also.”

Vaughan Named NRA LEO Of The Year

For his heroic actions to stop the attack at Vaughan Foods, Mark Vaughan has been named Law Enforcement Officer of the Year by the     National Rifle Association. His dual role as both armed citizen and reserve sheriff’s deputy ensured that he was at the right place at the right time when employees were fighting for their lives.

“The actions of Deputy Vaughan on Sept. 24 were nothing short of heroic,” Jim Porter, outgoing NRA president, said while presenting the award to Vaughan during the NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits in Nashville, Tenn., in April. “Thinking quickly and clearly, he put an end to an unspeakable rampage. The National Rifle Association is honored to name Deputy Vaughan as NRA’s Law Enforcement Officer of the Year.”

The NRA Law Enforcement Officer of the Year Award was established in 1993 and recognizes an exceptional act or service by a law enforcement officer and is administered by the NRA Law Enforcement Division. Nominations are accepted from anyone having knowledge of the nominee’s actions.

Terror In The Heartland

Many have reported that Alton Nolen, the attacker at Vaughan Foods, was engaged in an act of terror against those he hated. You sure won’t find Mark Vaughan arguing against that assertion.

“There is not a single day that goes by that I don’t think about the incident, that I don’t run those images through my mind,” Vaughan said. “Terrorism is here.”

Vaughan knows that many people don’t even want to think about the possibility of terrorist attacks in the United States. And even though this attack was officially labeled “workplace violence,” he believes most Americans know the truth.

“The heinous and barbaric nature of this attack, I think, put everyone on their heels,” Vaughan said. “I don’t think the population of this country is convinced [it was workplace violence]. They know the basis behind this attack.”

Vaughan added that it’s up to the jury to decide Nolen’s fate. But he hopes the violence of the attack hits home with many Americans, creating the awareness that homegrown terror does, indeed, exist.

“We still live in the greatest country in the world and I’m proud—very much—to be an American,” he said. “But we need to know that it’s going to be part of how we lead our daily lives moving forward.”

How Your NRA Goes To Court and WINS

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 27, 2015

How Your NRA Goes To Court

Electoral politics and legislation obviously play key roles in defending our firearm freedoms, and no organization is more effective in this realm than your National Rifle Association. Yet another vital facet of advancing and protecting the Second Amendment is pro-gun litigation. Here, too, the NRA leads the way.

America’s Founding Fathers recognized that the right to keep and bear arms extends from the inalienable, God-given right of self-defense. The U.S. Supreme Court explained that these rights existed even before the U.S. government was formed and that they take “certain policy choices off the table.” So when elected representatives attack or fail to safeguard gun owners’ rights, the battle shifts from the statehouses to the courts.

Protecting AR-15s And Other Popular Semi-Automatic Firearms 

After the tragic shootings in Newtown, Conn., legislators in a small handful of states—including Connecticut, Maryland and New York—exploited the public’s understandable anguish to enact restrictions on popular semi-automatic firearms long sought by gun-control advocates. Of course, none of these laws would have prevented those crimes. Armed with the Supreme Court’s pronouncement that the Second Amendment protects ownership of firearms “of the kind in common use” for lawful purposes, the NRA is challenging these bans, all of which reach America’s most popular rifle, the AR-15.

At the trial court level, the Connecticut and New York cases—Shew v. Malloy and NYSRPA v. Cuomo, respectively—were decided along similar lines. The courts agreed that the banned firearms were commonly used for lawful purposes but found that the laws impose only a minimal burden on Second Amendment-protected rights because people could still choose from other legally available firearms. Thus, the court wrongly subjected the bans only to deferential “intermediate scrutiny” and found that the states’ asserted public safety justifications passed that test. Needless to say, such reasoning would hardly be tenable if the government were to ban books or close places of worship merely because other options it considered more acceptable were still available.

Oral arguments in the appeal of both cases were heard last December before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, with decisions in the cases still pending.

The Maryland trial court decision in Kolbe v. O’Malleywas even more extreme, in that the judge refused even to acknowledge that AR-15s and the like were commonly used for lawful purposes or that they had defensive applications. The judge dismissed testimony by two pre-eminent experts in the field of ballistics—Dr. Gary Roberts and Buford Boone, who served for 15 years as Supervisory Special Agent of the FBI’s Ballistics Research Facility in Quantico, Va. Instead, she largely relied on the testimony of laymen and established anti-gun activists. Ultimately, the judge held that it didn’t matter whether the banned weapons fell outside the Second Amendment’s scope entirely, because the state had sufficient grounds to ban them. “[A]ssault weapons are military-style weapons designed for offensive use,” she wrote, “and are equally, or possibly even more effective, in functioning and killing capacity as their fully automatic versions.”

The case was appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit heard oral arguments on March 25, 2015. While we cannot know how the court will rule, the judges at least asked some pointed questions of the attorney defending Maryland’s law. During one exchange, for example, the attorney was forced to admit that, like a revolver, a semi-automatic pistol fires one shot per activation of the trigger and is therefore covered by the Second Amendment. If that is the case, the judge asked him, why shouldn’t a semi-automatic rifle that does the same thing be protected?

Protecting Standard-Capacity Magazines 

The laws cited in the aforementioned cases not only banned common and popular firearms, they also banned magazines for firearms based on their capacity. New York’s SAFE Act went even further, restricting the owners of “grandfathered” 10-round magazines to a load limit of seven rounds. In each case, the limits were less than those in the magazines commonly supplied by manufacturers with new firearms. A similar magazine limit enacted by Colorado was also challenged in the case of Colorado Outfitters v. Hickenlooper, although that law allowed a comparatively “generous” limit of 15 rounds (the law challenged in Connecticut set the cap at 10, while the SAFE Act originally set the limit at seven, before a later revision changed it to 10).

Of course, millions of Americans own untold millions of magazines with capacities exceeding 10 or 15 rounds, and those magazines are overwhelmingly used for lawful purposes. Thus, if the Supreme Court meant what it said in the Heller case, these should also be protected.

Once again, however, the trial courts wrongly held that the limits do not substantially burden the right to self-defense. In doing so, they credited testimony of the states’ witnesses that defensive uses of firearms rarely result in more than 10 shots being fired. Thus, the reasoning went, the bans were entitled to deferential scrutiny by the courts, which was satisfied by the states’ assertions that forcing criminals to change magazines more frequently might slow down their rampages.

As with the Connecticut, Maryland and New York cases, the Colorado case is on appeal, with arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit still pending.

The irony of all these cases is that the effectiveness and capacity of a firearm is always held to count against the law-abiding user. Thus, the better designed and equipped a firearm is for its primary defensive purpose—e.g., stopping lethal threats—the less constitutional protection it receives. Of course, with so many firearms and magazines already in circulation, none of these laws does anything to stop criminals from obtaining whatever prohibited items they want, but they do prevent law-abiding people from doing so. Thus, if anything, they shift the advantage to criminals. In fact, the trial judge in the NYSRPA case even acknowledged as much in finding that the load limit on firearms used for self-defense was unconstitutional and “arbitrary.” Because grandfathered 10-round magazines would also be available to criminals, the judge reasoned, the regulation “disproportionately affects law-abiding citizens.”

Beyond state restrictions, some localities, such as Sunnyvale, Calif., have also moved to prohibit commonly owned magazines. Through a 2013 ballot measure, Sunnyvale enacted a total ban on the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Unlike the state measures in the other cases, this local law did not even “grandfather” in magazines lawfully possessed at the time it was enacted. An NRA-backed case has been seeking an injunction on enforcement of the law, but in March, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit denied the request. Further proceedings will continue in that case, and could include a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court or a request to have the case reheard by the full 9th Circuit.

Protecting Right-To-Carry 

In recent years, NRA has been involved in significant litigation aimed at ensuring governments respect the right to bear arms for self-defense outside the home. The most notable of these cases are Shepard v. Madigan in Illinois and Peruta v. San Diego in California.

In Shepard, NRA state affiliate Illinois State Rifle Association challenged Illinois’ complete ban on carrying firearms outside the home for self-defense. Although the trial court sided with the state, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit reversed that decision, holding the ban unconstitutional in December 2012. Illinois subsequently passed a concealed-carry licensing law, and upward of 100,000 licenses have been issued to date.

Peruta involves a challenge to a San Diego County Sheriff’s policy that prevents most law-abiding adults from getting a license to carry a firearm, in that the sheriff refuses to recognize general self-defense as sufficient “good cause” for the issuance of a license. In February 2014, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit ruled that policy violated the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, that decision has been vacated, pending a rehearing by an 11-judge panel on June 15, 2015.

Cases Across The Gun Rights Spectrum 

These high-profile cases are just part of the NRA’s pro-gun litigation portfolio. In Pennsylvania, we’re suing Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Lancaster over violations of the state’s firearm pre-emption law. We’re also involved in the fight to protect gun owners’ privacy and rights of association against intrusive NSA surveillance practices.

For years, we’ve helped to counter lawsuits aimed at forcing the Environmental Protection Agency to ban lead bullets.

Litigation can be a tortuously slow process, with cases spanning years’ worth of appeals and procedural maneuvers. Your NRA is committed to fighting as long as it takes, however, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms gets the same protection and respect from the courts as every other civil right.

Why Can’t We Simply Carry? (The Libtards…That’s Why!)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 27, 2015

Why Can’t We Simply Carry?

The so-called “mainstream” media likes to spin a scary narrative of lawlessness, even of anarchy, when “permitless carry” (sometimes called “constitutional carry”) is brought before a state legislature. When the media does this, whether through ignorance or bias, they’re simply ignoring the facts. For example, Vermont, which has long had permitless carry, has also long had one of the lowest violent crime rates in the nation.

States, nevertheless, can still be laboratories of democracy—even with politically incorrect gun laws. That is part of what’s going on with permitless carry. As of this writing, states with some legal form of permitless concealed carry include Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Vermont and Wyoming. This, of course, doesn’t include the 26 states that broadly recognize the right to carry handguns openly (not concealed) without a permit.

Kansas is the newest addition to the list of permitless concealed-carry states. Under an NRA-backed bill signed by Gov. Sam Brownback in early April, Kansans who are at least 21 years old and not prohibited from possessing a firearm under either federal or state law will no longer be prohibited from carrying concealed firearms without a permit. This law doesn’t scrap Kansas’ handgun carry permit system, as residents can still apply for and obtain a permit. Actually, if they plan to travel outside Kansas with a handgun, they still must acquire a permit—without a permit, they won’t be able to legally carry in the many states that have reciprocity agreements with Kansas.

Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), spoke highly of the new Kansas law upon the governor’s signing of the bill:

“On behalf of the NRA’s 5 million members, we want to thank Governor Brownback and Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce for their leadership on this critical issue,” Cox said. “This new law is a common-sense measure that allows law-abiding Kansans to exercise their fundamental right to self-protection in the manner that best suits their needs.”

Keeping The Bureaucracy Honest 

In truth, passage of the Kansas law, like in other states, is in essence simply deregulating concealed carry. Cox brings up a central, but often overlooked, part of what’s compelling some to push for such deregulation. The complex web of laws regulating guns in and between the states can be confusing and onerous. Different gun regulations among the states—and even within some states—can be bewildering. Also, navigating sometimes sluggish bureaucracies can be a burden on law-abiding gun owners. These problems are a part of what’s prompting many gun owners to push for permitless carry.

Anyone who has stood in line at a state department of motor vehicles knows that bureaucracies left unchecked can grow into large, often senseless, alternate realities. When common sense and good laws keep a bureaucracy in check, things can work relatively well. But when behind them is a legislature that sees the citizenry’s right to bear arms as a problem, the bureaucracy can purposely create a gauntlet designed to make getting a permit to carry a concealed handgun all but impossible.

It was no small feat of bureaucratic endurance, for example, for me to get my handgun carry permit from New York state’s Dutchess County. The thing that sticks in my mind—I didn’t even mind the trouble of getting four people to use their lunch hours to visit notary publics to sign statements swearing I’m a good citizen—was one simple but very troubling question. I was seated in a metal chair in front of a gray desk in the sheriff’s department’s pistol bureau. My pen dangled over a form that felt more like a final exam.

The question asked how I intended to use a handgun. If I wrote “self-defense” and was later stopped for having a headlight out, and so by law had to declare I carry, would that phrase cover me? If not, did I need to write in every conceivable situation—self-defense, hunting, going to the range—wherein I might carry a handgun? If so, I’d need a lot more paper.

After a minute twisted up in this invasive question, a kind bureaucrat on the other side of the gray desk leaned forward and said, “Just write for all legal purposes.” I smiled and thanked her. After all, “for all legal purposes” is a smart escape from a legalistic trap.

That little snare is nothing compared to the bureaucratic entanglements created in places like the District of Columbia. This, of course, is why your NRA has long been actively lobbying for states to pass “shall-issue” carry laws, so that when a person meets all legal requirements, a state must issue the individual a concealed-carry permit—as opposed to “may-issue,” where a bureaucrat can use his or her own “discretion” to deny someone’s constitutionally protected right to bear arms. These bureaucratic hurdles are also why some prefer permitless carry.

The Underlying Constitutional Struggle 

Additionally, some gun owners don’t believe they should have to receive permission from the state to exercise a right that has been specifically protected from government infringement by the U.S. Bill of Rights. This gets us to the basis of our rights, which is a discussion many in the mainstream media would rather not dig into.

As enumerated in the U.S. Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is what constitutional scholars call a “negative liberty,” or a restriction on government. Like other provisions in the Bill of Rights, it was enacted primarily with the federal government in mind. In the 20th century, however, amendments within the Bill of Rights were construed by the U.S. Supreme Court to also restrict state and local governments (a legal process called “incorporation”). After the U.S. Supreme Court, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), ruled that the Second Amendment is indeed an individual right, the high court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that the Second Amendment also restricts state and local governments.

By contrast, positive rights, such as those that exist in the European Union, are created by and defined by government. Positive rights are not restrictions on government. Positive rights theoretically empower the government to do as it thinks best with or for us, whereas negative liberties are the people’s way of restricting government power.

Some have argued the requirement of any sort of permitting process and fees as preconditions to lawfully carrying a firearm for self-defense constitutes an unlawful prior restraint. Others are willing to tolerate a fee-based Right-to-Carry permitting regime, so long as permitless open carry remains an option. The issue of charging fees for the permitting process also raises objections by some, especially when those fees exceed the administrative expenses of administering the system. 

In this post Heller and McDonald legal world, these are just the beginning of the legal questions now being debated. For now, though, court watchers wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to accept a case that will further define the right to bear arms. The scope of the Second Amendment is still being shaped by the courts.

Yet constitutional rights only provide a “floor” of protection against official transgression. They do not decide the best or optimum level of freedom, nor inhibit legislatures from providing additional legal protections for fundamental liberties. This is why your NRA is so active in both courtrooms and legislatures, and needs your continued support. Generations from now, gun owners will look back at this period as pivotal to their struggle to be free. When they do, they’ll either thank us or condemn us.

That’s a brief explanation of what’s going on in the legal weeds. It’s worth understanding the basis of this debate because a populace that is ignorant of its rights is certain to lose its rights. Thomas Jefferson said this more eloquently in a letter he wrote to Col. Charles Yancey in 1816: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.”

Protecting honest, law-abiding Americans from the predations of criminals and the overreach of unchecked, sometimes hostile bureaucracy is what, at its core, the permitless carry movement is all about. And while the NRA wholeheartedly supports permitless carry legislative efforts, it should be noted that many gun owners in states that pass such legislation will still want to be issued permits so they can participate in the reciprocity carry agreements forged between states over the past several years.

The Big Picture: RTC Reciprocity

To bring this struggle against confusing and sometimes burdensome laws into focus, consider another battle the NRA is fully engaged in—the fight for a national Right-to-Carry reciprocity law. There are now more than 12 million Americans who have obtained concealed-carry permits. These citizens have entered into and are required to understand what can be a complex web of laws. In some states, Right-to-Carry permit holders are subject to varying rules as to where, how and what they can carry from one political subdivision to the next. Even after they learn and obey these restrictions on their rights, if they want to travel to another state with their personal-protection gun, they have to consider the laws of other states. This is a very complicated and burdensome process, and it contains many pitfalls even for those who go out of their way to try to learn and obey the law.

Shaneen Allen found this out the hard way. Her case became a wake-up call for many around the country. Allen, a single mother and Right-to-Carry permit holder from Pennsylvania, was arrested in New Jersey for having her handgun in her car. She had been pulled over by a New Jersey police officer for making an unsafe lane change. She then told the officer she had a handgun. The police officer arrested her. She was then shocked to find that a prosecutor wanted to lock her up for years, even though she had no criminal record.

Her case drew more attention when Atlantic County Prosecutor Jim McClain refused to allow her in the pretrial intervention program (PTI), a state process created to keep people like Allen from jail. McClain’s office, however, had used PTI to keep NFL star Ray Rice from jail, even after a video surfaced showing him knocking out his then-fiancée with a punch to the face. Thankfully, the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office responded to the resulting outcry by issuing revised guidelines for determining who qualifies for PTI. Allen was accepted into PTI under the revised guidelines, and Gov. Chris Christie ultimately pardoned her. The laws that ensnared Allen, however, are still on the books in New Jersey.Allen’s case is just one of many such injustices and vividly illustrates why the NRA advocates for a national reciprocity law for Right-to-Carry-permit holders.

At press time, several such bills had been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Those carrying under the authority of this legislation would still be subject to the same rules of behavior the states apply to their own residents who carry. None of the laws provide for a national concealed-carry permit, nor do they dictate how states issue their own permits. They also do not allow a resident to circumvent his or her home state’s Right-to-Carry permit laws; the federal protection only applies when the permit holder travels out of his or her home state.

The issue of Right-to-Carry reciprocity even took a front seat at the recent NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits in Nashville, Tenn., in April. In fact, NRA Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre spoke of the urgency of passing legislation this session during his speech at the Annual Meeting of Members.

“In these dangerous times, no one should be forced to face evil with bare hands,” LaPierre said. “It’s time for national Right-to-Carry [reciprocity] legislation. It’s time for Congress to pass it today.”

De Blasio Blames Others for City Crimewave That HE Created

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 27, 2015

BE FUNKY New Yorkers Hate Bill de Blasio Progressive Agenda Socialism Communism

Image Credit: viewpointsofsagittarrian


The number of shootings and murders is up in the city, but Mayor Bill de Blasio says gang-on-gang crime is to blame for the recent upswing.

Although the number of murders is on the rise, de Blasio said the situation is better than it has been in recent years, 1010 WINS’ Juliet Papa reports.

“We are down compared to last year to date, we’re down from the year before that,” de Blasio said. “Where we’re at this year compared to last year, and previous years, we are still at one of the lowest murder rates we have ever had in the history of the city.”

However, there were eight murders last week alone, and at least one expert is fearful because he says the crime is pushing from the outer boroughs to Manhattan tourist sports, CBS2’s Marcia Kramer reported.

“The fact that there is a significant spike in violent crime, specifically shootings and murders, gives us pause to believe there is something that is just not right in the city’s policing system right now,” said former FBI agent and NYPD sergeant Manny Gomez.

Read More…

NYCG Radio Episode #121 – 5/26/15 “DC CCW Case & Freedom”

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 27, 2015

New York City Guns Radio Episode

The fallout from the recent DC CCW decision for New York City’s unconstitutional concealed carry laws is apparent to the libtard media scum. As the libturds twist in the wind, the coming tidal wave of CCW freedoms makes our hearts sing with joy!





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

Muslim World Reacts to Obama’s Latest Speech (They Mock The One)

Categories: Humor, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 26, 2015

For those that understand “Poe’s Law” no further disclaimer is required. For those that don’t………I suggest you look it up.

How much ammunition do you REALLY need? A “rule of thumb” to stockpiling ammo.

Categories: Be Prepared, Education, News, Skills
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 26, 2015

Ever since I’ve gotten serious about being ready to defend my home, I’ve heard people tell me that I needed 1,000 rounds of each caliber ammunition that I use or 10,000 total rounds of ammunition.

I’ve always been a bit uncomfortable with those numbers. Not that I see anything wrong with having a lot of ammo on hand, just that I’ve always thought they were rather arbitrary.

Arbitrary numbers bother me, because they clearly have not been though through.

When it comes to the equipment and supplies I have on hand for survival, I believe it is important to make sure that I have what I need, not just some arbitrary number. That means thinking the situation through and making some hard decisions.

So let’s start by defining some things FIRST when it comes to stockpiling ammunition …

Read More…

Rep. Steve Scalise Introduces Bill to Relax Restrictions on Interstate Firearm Sales

Categories: Activism, Legal, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 26, 2015

Image Credit: Gage Skidmore (CC)


Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) has introduced a bill to modernize certain aspects of interstate firearms commerce. The Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act, H.R. 2246, would yield increased convenience and choice for consumers, while continuing to allow states to set their own policy regarding transfer and possession of firearms within their borders.

In 1968, when the federal Gun Control Act (GCA) was enacted, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and today’s sophisticated computer technology did not exist, and what background checks were run on gun sales occurred at the state or local level. Recognizing that state approaches to gun laws varied, Congress enacted a nationwide system of licensing for those engaged in the business of firearm commerce and generally prohibited licensed dealers from selling guns to out of state residents or shipping guns directly to unlicensed buyers.

The 1968 law contained limited exceptions for interstate sale of rifles or shotguns. Specifically, the buyer`s state had to have a law allowing such transactions. Second, the transaction had to comply with the state law in both the buyer`s and seller`s states. Third, the dealer had to notify the chief law enforcement officer in the buyer`s state, and wait for evidence that the officer had received the notification. Finally, the dealer had to wait seven days after receiving the notice before completing the transfer. These requirements were intended to keep buyers from leaving their home states to evade whatever sort of background check might be required under state law.

In the 1980s, the Congress revisited these restrictions during the debate over the Firearms Owners` Protection Act (FOPA). As the Senate Judiciary Committee`s report on FOPA put it, the 1968 interstate sales provisions were “so cumbersome that they [were] rarely used.” When the Congress passed FOPA in 1986, it did away with the state authorization, notification and waiting period requirements. Federal law now allows dealers to make interstate rifle and shotgun sales, as long as: (a) the buyer meets in person with the dealer, and (b) the transaction complies with the laws of both the buyer`s and the seller`s states.

Since 1998, however, all people buying firearms from licensed dealers anywhere in the U.S. have been subject to computerized background checks under the FBI`s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), either by the dealer contacting NICS (directly or through a state “point of contact” agency) or by the buyer presenting a state firearms permit issued after a NICS check. NICS, moreover, is a national system that collects records from every state and makes those records available to every other state. Thus, even if a person leaves a state where some disabling conviction, commitment, or order was entered, any records reported to the databases encompassed by the NICS system will show up through a NICS check in any other state.

This means that even if a person buys a firearm from an FFL out of state, that FFL’s NICS check will also be able to screen for disqualifying records from the person’s home state. This makes a limitation on buying only from FFL’s in one’s own state unnecessary.

Under H.R. 2246, FFLs could sell both handguns and long guns to unlicensed residents from other states, but the transfer would still have to occur in a face-to-face transaction (in other words, no mail order sales to non-licensees), and it would still have to comply with the laws of the state of the buyer’s residence. Thus, a buyer could not go out of a state to buy a firearm banned in the buyer’s state of residence, and any prohibited person provisions, waiting periods, or other requirements specific to the buyer’s state of residence would still apply.

The bill would also allow FFLs to sell firearms at gun shows in other states, so long as they complied with the laws both of the state of transfer and of the buyer’s state of residence.

All other rules governing retail sales by FFLs – including the paperwork, identification, and NICS requirements – would continue to apply.

Finally, the bill would recognize the realities that military members face in having to make frequent moves to duty stations throughout the U.S. and abroad. It would clarify that service members and their spouses are residents, for purposes of the GCA, of their state of legal residence, of the state in which the member’s permanent duty station is located, and of the state in which the member maintains a place of abode from which the member commutes each day to the permanent duty station. Civilian employees of federal agencies such as the State Department who are stationed overseas for long periods would also benefit, as the bill would effectively allow them to buy firearms in the U.S. during trips back home to their U.S. state of residence.

The NRA thanks Rep. Scalise for his leadership in this important effort. It’s high time Congress recognizes that today’s systems of interstate commerce and information sharing are far more advanced and well-developed than in the late 1960s, and federal regulation of firearms sales (products that are legal and constitutionally-protected in every state) should keep pace with these developments.

Court Rebukes D.C. for Discretionary Licensing Regime

Categories: Activism, Legal, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 26, 2015

On May 18, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order prohibiting enforcement of provisions of D.C. law that effectively grant to the police chief the discretion to decide who may lawfully exercise the right to bear arms in public for self-defense. This follows on the heels of an earlier ruling in which the District lost the argument that the right to “bear arms” does not apply outside the home, leading to the hasty enactment of an “emergency” may-issue concealed carry licensing scheme. Such a license is the only means by which most people can lawfully carry firearms in D.C. for self-defense. Monday’s case, Wren v. District of Columbia, made a preliminary ruling that D.C.’s policy of discretionary issuance would likely run afoul of the Second Amendment.

Under D.C.’s law, an applicant must show a “good reason to fear injury to his or her person” or “other proper reason” for the carrying of a concealed handgun. Apart from employment involving the handling or transportation of cash or other valuables, the only way to meet these requirements is to show “a special need for self-protection,” or for protection of a vulnerable family member, “distinguishable from the general community” (emphasis added). In other words, the District has established a strong legal presumption against exercise of the right that an applicant has to rebut with “evidence of specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger” to the life of the applicant or vulnerable family member.

The upshot of these requirements is that most applications will be summarily denied, which D.C. acknowledged to the court was the point of enacting them. The court wrote, “Defendants argue that the … requirement[s] reasonably further[] its important governmental interest in reducing the number of concealed weapons in public in order to reduce the risks to other members of the public and to reduce the disproportionate use of such weapons in the commission of violent crimes.”

According to the court, however, meeting the “good” or “proper” reason requirement “does not indicate, in any way, whether that person is less likely to misuse handguns or may be less dangerous.” The court also found the requirements irrelevant to the question of whether the person would be at an increased risk of an accidental shooting or of criminal activity. “Is the Court to conclude,” Judge Frederick Scullin asked rhetorically, “that people who do not have a heightened need for self-protection are more likely to commit violent crimes?”

On the other hand, the court also found “it possible that even persons who cannot manifest a present need for self-protection are just as likely to be victims of a violent crime.”

Accordingly, the court ruled, “Defendants have failed to demonstrate that there is any relationship … between reducing the risk to other members of the public and/or violent crime and the District of Columbia’s ‘good reason/’proper reason’ requirement.” Instead, “this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms.”

To date, the neither the District Court nor the D.C. Court of appeals have delayed implementation of Judge Scullin’s order that prohibits both enforcement of the unconstitutional provisions and denial of applications for those who otherwise meet licensing requirements and are eligible to possess and carry firearms in the District. For now, at least, D.C. is effectively a “shall-issue” jurisdiction.

How long that situation will last is anybody’s guess, but D.C. officials have already indicated to the media that they will continue their campaign to make D.C.’s gun control laws the strictest in the nation.

In the meantime, D.C. residents have access to what the U.S. Supreme Court characterized as a right to carry firearms “in case of confrontation,” rather than a District-granted consolation prize for those who have, metaphorically, taken one for the team by enduring the first round of aggression while disarmed.

NY State Republicans to Target Party’s RINOs in Overall Leadership

Categories: Activism, News, NY Follies, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 26, 2015

Image Credit:


…Another sign of the worsening split between Long Island Senate Republicans and key GOP constituency groups came last week as the state Rifle and Pistol Association urged members to run campaigns against Republicans who voted for the SAFE Act.

“These people are without the backbone or the will required to do what must be done, so they must be ousted at the ballot box,’’ said association president Tom King.

Read More…

Low IQ Washington D.C. police chief downplays ruling on concealed carry law

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 26, 2015

Citing the low number of concealed carry permit applications the District has received, D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier on Tuesday downplayed the effects of a federal court ruling that strikes down the city’s requirement gun owners demonstrate a “good reason” in order to receive the permits.

Since October, when regulations for the issuance of concealed carry permits took effect, through May 9, the Metropolitan Police Department received 107 applications and denied 42. It has granted 26 concealed carry permits.

“It’s not a huge impact for us. We haven’t had a huge number of applicants,” Chief Lanier said during an interview Tuesday on NewsTalk with Bruce Depuyt. “Our residents have been pretty clear this is not something that they wanted. A very small number of D.C. residents have applied for concealed carry.”

India: Guns for the Elite, but Not for the Common Man

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 26, 2015

Will new norms liberalise access of guns to those in power, but ignore security of the common man?

A devout Hindu, Rampal Lodhi follows every ritual. He shuns non-vegetarian food on Tuesdays, fasts on full-moon days and even encourages his family to take part in religious ceremonies in his village of Gadhiya in Etah district, roughly 207 km from Delhi. But, unlike most other Hindus, he neither goes to any temple nor believes in idol worship.
“Bandook mera bhagwaan hai. Isne mujhe aur mere parivaar ko bachaya hai [The gun is my God. It has saved me and my family],” declares Lodhi. For over three decades, the 55-year-old farmer says he has borne the brunt of exploitation by the landed class in his village. That he has managed to protect himself and his family, he claims, is largely thanks to a gun he got in 2005 after 20 years of trying.

Fight Continues Against SAFE Act and Dozens of Other Anti-Gun Bills in New York

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: May 26, 2015

Lawmakers are entering the final weeks of the 2015 legislative session in Albany, and NRA continues to focus its efforts on the partial and/or complete repeal of the SAFE Act. We are also actively engaged and working against the hundreds of anti-gun bills that remain in the hopper. Make no mistake, our adversaries are not satisfied with the deeply flawed SAFE Act and continue to push for even more draconian restrictions.

Just this month, the Senate Codes Committee defeated a pair of gun control bills. We successfully opposed a ban on .50 Caliber guns and the mandatory storage of firearms.

Senate Bill 2050, sponsored by state Senator Daniel Squadron (D-26), would have banned .50 Caliber rifles, which are almost exclusively owned by collectors and competitive shooters. Anti-gun legislators have never been able to demonstrate cases where this gun has been used in a crime. This legislation would have zero impact on public safety and would do nothing but add insult to injury to the state’s already beleaguered firearms community.

Senate Bill 2491, sponsored by state Senator Liz Krueger (D-28), would have forced gun owners to lock up guns in the home, which would only give criminals an advantage. This legislation is dangerous and renders firearms useless in self-defense situations. S.2491 would have created six new crimes within article 265 of the penal law in addition to creating felony penalties. Every household is different and firearms storage should be a matter of personal responsibility, not mandated by legislation.

Downstate, anti-gun legislators also continue to push for microstamping legislation, Assembly Bill 6192, introduced by Assemblywoman Michelle Schimel. This bill has been successfully defeated for a decade, and there are assurances from the Senate Majority that the bill will not progress through the State Legislature.

Given anti-gun legislators and Governor Cuomo’s commitment to gun control, legislative reforms are going to be challenging to achieve, but your NRA will continue the fight to advance the interests of gun owners and sportsmen. New York gun owners’ also have the option for relief from the misguided gun control laws in the courts. Accordingly, NRA has provided direct financial assistance and legal resources to the lawsuit challenging the SAFE Act.

The Senate Majority recently underwent a leadership change and there at least appears to be a willingness to revisit some of provisions of the SAFE Act. Specifically, NRA is focusing on repealing provisions of this dreadful law that prevent passing along previously legal firearms to family members, and we support a pair of bills to do just that. Senate Bill 3373, introduced by state Senator Patrick Gallivan, authorizes the transfer of legally possessed and validly registered weapons to stay in families through estate planning. Sen. Patrick Gallivan also introduced Senate Bill 3377 which expands “immediate family” language in SAFE Act to include siblings, grandparents, and grandchildren. Of course, NRA will continue efforts to achieve a full repeal of the SAFE Act.

NRA is also fighting to end the state’s funding of the ammunition background check database. As a result, we met with legislators during budget hearings in April. In New York, the Governor has broad funding authority, and it is very difficult to block lump sum appropriations. However, we plan to continue to fight this waste of taxpayer money on an unconstitutional infringement, just as we did successfully with CoBis. These are just a couple of examples of how we are targeting SAFE Act reforms in the event that full repeal isn’t successful at the Statehouse.

Please continue to follow NRA-ILA alerts for further updates as we continue to fight these battles for law-abiding New York gun owners in both Albany and the courts.

Training Schedule

6/6/15 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

6/20/15 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

7/18/15 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

8/1/15 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

8/15/15 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

8/29/15 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

Current Episode

"DC CCW Case & Freedom"


Discount NRA Membership
Join The NRA and Get $10 off a Yearly Membership!
Ted Cruz for President

It’ll take a new generation of courageous conservatives to reignite the promise of America, restore our Constitution, and bring back morning in America. Ted Cruz is the man for that job. Join us today!

Real Gun Facts
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 Friday, May 29, 2015