New York City Guns archive
Category : Education

Obama’s Lofty Plans on Gun Violence Amount to Little Action (NY Slimes Whine…)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: February 8, 2016


The centerpiece of a plan for stemming gun violence that President Obama announced last month largely amounts to this: an updated web page and 10,000 pamphlets that federal agents will give out at gun shows.

In a tearful display of anger and sadness in the East Room of the White House, Mr. Obama ordered steps intended to limit gun violence and vowed to clamp down on what he called widespread evasion of a federal law requiring gun dealers to obtain licenses.

But few concrete actions have been put in motion by law enforcement agencies to aggressively carry out the gun dealer initiative, despite the lofty expectations that Mr. Obama and top aides set.

Read More…

Schlafly unloads on Rubio: ‘He betrayed us all’

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: February 7, 2016

Rubio Waterboy

In 2009, Marco Rubio was a plucky challenger for the open Senate seat in Florida, taking on incumbent Republican Gov. Charlie Crist. Though Rubio was trailing in the polls, one leading conservative activist thought he had real potential and vowed to help him.

“When Marco Rubio ran for the Senate in Florida, I think I was the first one to endorse him,” said Phyllis Schlafly. “I made a trip down to Florida in 2009 just for the purpose of helping him.”

But Schlafly, a legendary conservative activist, author and WND columnist, now says she is bitterly disappointed by Rubio’s record.

Read More…

Obscure Law From the ’70s Is Being Used to Toss Innocent People Out of Their Homes by NYPD

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: February 7, 2016


An obscure law from the 1970s is being used by the NYPD to boot people from their homes and businesses when they are suspected of crimes, often in cases where no charges are ever filed. The move is called a “nuisance abatement,” and there are more than 1,000 such actions a year, nearly half of them residential and many that are permanent evictions, according to an investigation by the New York Daily News and ProPublica. The law has been called a “collective punishment,” affecting whole families if any single member is suspected of illegal activity.

Nuisance abatement began when the Police Department was trying to get rid of massage parlors and such in Times Square, but its use has since expanded to include mom-and-pop shops and individuals’ apartments. Three-quarters of the cases are filed through secret court orders, on which judges sign off without getting the residents’ perspective. (Technically, the action is being taken against the place instead of the person.) As a result, people get locked out of their homes for days, and have been, on occasion, swarmed by SWAT teams and sent to Rikers Island.

Read More…

2016 Begins: The Democrats Lie About the NRA and Gun Rights to Ring In The New Year

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: February 7, 2016

The 2016 presidential campaign is now officially underway, with the completion of the Iowa caucuses last Monday evening.

First the numbers. On the GOP side, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz finished first, with 28% of the vote, Donald Trump finished second with 24%, and Florida Senator Marco Rubio came in a close third with 23%. Cruz won 8 delegates, Trump and Rubio won 7 apiece (three other candidates split the remaining 5 delegates.) It has been reported that the turnout for the GOP caucuses was a historic high.

For the Democrats it was the slimmest advantage to Hillary Clinton, winning just two more delegates than Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Interestingly, in 6 precincts the Democrat outcome was decided by a coin toss, which somehow Hillary Clinton won each time. Unlike on the GOP side, turnout was down heavily for the Democrats, with 25% less participation than in 2008, the last race with a contested outcome.

But when it comes to presidential politics, the basic facts never tell the whole story.

First there is the expectations game. There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton was the big loser in this regard. After all, this was supposed to be the beginning of a coronation for her. The Clinton machine was supposed to clear the field and run unheeded to the nomination. But we’ve heard that before. The fact that she was unable to defeat a little known (at least until a few months ago) Senator is a major setback for her campaign and sounds ominously similar to 2008. This is especially true when you consider that Sanders currently has a double-digit lead in New Hampshire, which holds the first primary next Tuesday.

Additionally, the forgotten Democratic candidate, former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley dropped out of the race after only receiving 0.6% of the vote and earning no delegates. While O’Malley tried to make his run on his opposition to gun owners’ rights and his contempt for the NRA, he never gained any visible support from this gambit.

Of course, Mrs. Clinton has made her complete opposition to the Second Amendment rights of Americans a central part of her campaign as well, even attacking NRA-PVF “D” rated Sanders for not being sufficiently anti-gun. Clearly for Clinton, the only gun rights that are acceptable are none at all.

In a related story, in the days running up to the caucuses, Clinton attacked the NRA for supporting lowering the age for handgun possession. Problem is, as is her norm, Clinton got it wrong. What she was talking about is a NRA-supported bill in the Iowa legislature that would allow temporary possession of a handgun for those under 21 while under direct supervision by an adult. This would allow parents and guardians to train young people and provide recreational and sporting opportunities to future shooters. One has to assume that Hillary Clinton opposes such training, but that is hardly a surprise when you recall that she supports British and Australian style gun bans and confiscation.

If Hillary had actually investigated the matter instead of taking another opportunity to blindly attack NRA, she could have learned that the bill is the brainchild of a Iowa father who wants nothing more than to share the shooting sports with his 11 and 12 year-old daughters. But it does not help Clinton’s anti-gun narrative if she can’t blame the NRA.

Perhaps the most important takeaway from the Iowa caucuses is that Hillary Clinton is not the juggernaut that she wants us to believe. She might not even be the nominee.

Now the process moves on to New Hampshire where a new set of expectations are in place. Stay tuned.

Bill Aimed at Ending Operation Choke Point Passes House

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: February 7, 2016

On Thursday, a bi-partisan majority of the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 766, the ‘‘Financial Institution Customer Protection Act of 2015,” sponsored by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO). As we reported last year, this bill targets the abuses of Operation Choke Point (OCP), an Obama administration “enforcement” program that lumped together legal and illegal businesses into a “high risk” category and threatened the banks with intense regulatory scrutiny. The goal of OCP was to deter the banks from forming or continuing relationships with the targeted industries, thereby driving them out of business. Included on this list were firearm and ammunition sellers, many of whom found themselves struggling to find or keep banking relationships as a result of the program.

Rep. Luetkemeyer’s legislation would institute numerous reforms to bring more transparency and accountability to federal oversight of banks, all aimed at preventing the sort of unchecked enforcement discretion and twisting of legislative language at the heart of OCP.

For example, the bill would require regulators that suggest or order a bank to terminate a customer’s account to put the directive in writing, with reference to any specific laws or regulations the enforcement agency believed were being violated. Moreover, no such reason could be based solely on “reputational risk,” the supposed basis for including firearm and ammunition businesses within the scope of OCP’s “high risk” target list.

Regulating agencies would also have to submit annual reports to Congress documenting any such requests or orders. Finally, the Act would make important amendments to the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, which agencies have cited as authorization for OCP, to clarify the law’s scope so as to conclusively preempt this dubious justification.

When he reintroduced the bill last year, Rep. Luetkemeyer published excerpts of a FDIC whistleblower’s letter, which help substantiate the illegitimate ends of OCP. The individual wrote:

I am an employee of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). I was proud of my job and the FDIC’s mission before Operation Choke Point. During the past two years, however, we have been told to examine banks much more harshly, if they deal with a class of customers prohibited by Choke Point.

Predictability, the White House is already threatening to veto the legislation if it reaches the president’s desk. As it often does when pushing for policies that provide the Executive Branch with broad discretionary authorities, the administration’s statement invoked terrorism and national security interests. Yet the administration has already overplayed that card with its attempts to disingenuously tie gun control to the Terrorist Watchlist and to portray its political enemies as dangerous “extremists.”

Indeed, if ever there was a strong argument for curbing executive authority and discretion, the Obama administration would be it. Rarely has any U.S. president so bent otherwise legitimate authorities and oversight functions toward purely political and self-serving ends.

The NRA commends Rep. Luetkemeyer for his leadership in addressing this critical issue, as well as Rep. Jeb Hensaring (R-TX), Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, for helping usher the bill through the floor vote without any unfavorable amendments. We also wholeheartedly recommend the Financial Institution Customer Protection Act for favorable consideration in the Senate.

Europeans Discover Virtues of Armed Self-defense as EU Bureaucrats Seek New Gun Controls

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: February 7, 2016

At the same time the European Union bureaucrats in Brussels are trying to foist further gun controls on the continent, Europeans are exhibiting a newfound interest in acquiring the tools of self-defense. Though restricted by EU mandate and often severe national gun controls, following a series of high-profile attacks on women, Europeans are buying up whatever means of protection they can still legally obtain.

The surge in interest in firearms and other self-defense products dates back several months and relates in part to European unease surrounding mass immigration from the other parts of the world. In October, Fox News and others reported a marked increase in firearm sales in Austria. In the piece, Thomas Ortner, a spokesman for Austrian gun retailers, noted, “Nearly all shotguns are sold out because you don’t need to have a firearms permit to buy them… Registration courses for pistols are usually held only every five weeks but are now held weekly.”

By all accounts this trend has continued into 2016, spurred on by a scene of anarchic violence in the German city of Cologne. According to an account from the New York Times:

As 2016 neared on Dec. 31, however, some 1,500 men, including some newly arrived asylum seekers and many other immigrants, had instead assembled around Cologne’s train station. Drunk and dismissive of the police, they took advantage of an overwhelmed force to sexually assault and rob hundreds of people, according to police reports, shocking Germany and stoking anxieties over absorbing refugees across Europe.

As a January article from Reuters pointed out, a look at the best-selling products on the “Sport & Leisure” section of (the German immediately following the attacks revealed brisk sales of defensive sprays. The report also noted that the president of German defensive spray manufacturer DEF-TEC told the news outlet that sales of the products had “rose seven-fold in the final three months of last year.” On January 15, NBC News reported that so far in 2016 over 300 people had applied to Cologne police for licenses to carry gas pistols and imitation firearms; while only 408 such licenses were granted in all of 2015. Further, the New York Post pointed out in an article titled “Europeans stocking up on guns after mass sex attacks,” actual firearms are also in great demand.

More recently, German state news agency Deutsche Welle noted this trend. According to the article, “most customers want a pistol that can fit easily into a handbag or a small drawer in the night table.” Moreover, a “social media expert” told the news outlet, “There has been an increase of at least 1,000 percent or more in Google search queries for gun permits since January.”

To their credit, rank and file German police officers appear to support the decision many Germans are taking to arm themselves. German Police Union Chief Rainer Wendt told Deutsche Welle that the police do not intend to obstruct citizens in their attempts to lawfully arm and that he does not support new laws that would make it more difficult for the public to obtain self-defense products.

As we pointed out back in November and December, this all comes at a time when the EU is seeking to crack down on firearm ownership in its member states. Pursuant to the European Firearms Directive, EU nations are already required to adopt a minimum threshold of gun restrictions. However, on November 18, in the wake of terrorist shootings and bombings in Paris, the European Commission announced that it was expediting previously contemplated gun control legislation. An extensive overview of current EU firearms law can be found at Library of Congress’ website.

Under EU legislative procedure, typically the transnational government’s executive branch, the European Commission, drafts and proposes legislation. The proposed legislation must then be approved by the European Parliament, which consists of members of parliament (MEPs) elected by the citizens of member states, and the European Council, which consists of the leaders of the various member states, in order to be adopted. These entities may also provide amendments to the proposed legislation.

The centerpiece of the recent proposal would place semi-automatic firearms in the same category as automatic firearms, barring civilian use. Other provisions offend the privacy rights of gun owners with stricter firearm registration requirements, and “standard medical tests” for firearm licensing. Additionally, firearms licenses issued by member states could not be valid for a period longer than five years.

Predictably, the gun control-crazed United Kingdom government, led by Tory Prime Minister David Cameron, offered their full-throated support of EU-wide gun control measures prior to a December 17-18 meeting of the European Council. In a December 13 press release that echoed the November 18 European Commission announcement, Cameron cited concerns over terrorism and noted, “I’ll be calling for a new EU-wide ban on all high-powered semi-automatic weapons.”

However, many EU member governments and shooting organizations have made clear they have no intention of caving to Brussels’ onerous dictates.

Revealing that many in the UK don’t agree with the efficacy of additional firearm restrictions, UK shooting organizations the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and Countryside Alliance have worked in concert to oppose the current EU proposal. A February 2 article from the UK’s Western Morning News noted that the groups have shared their concerns about the proposed rules with several MEPs and UK government officials. In conveying their position to the news outlet, a Countryside Alliance spokesperson explained, “We believe the current set of proposals will have a serious effect on sporting and target shooting, collectors, museums, re-enactors and the gun trade, resulting in heavy restrictions and a great deal more work for the already overburdened police force… In fact it appears that the only group that will not be affected by these proposals is terrorists.”

Similarly, representatives from German shooting organizations have met with German government officials to explain their opposition to the new restrictions. A December 21 Deutsche Welle article noted that the German Interior Ministry invited the groups in for a meeting. Following the session, Director of the German Federal Association of Shooting Ranges Joachim Streitberger told the news outlet, “The proposal contains things that the [German Interior Ministry] said would be difficult for them, and where changes would be called for,” adding, “After this conversation I do not expect the draft to come into force in the present form.” Streitberger also noted, “The criminal doesn’t care one bit what is in the law. The paradox is to try to use the law to avoid disadvantaging the law-abiding, while regulating the law-breaker, and that’s a paradox that a lawmaker can’t solve. Which weapon used in Paris was legally owned?”

Additionally, the article cites Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine, which reported, “confidential EU reports suggest that the German government – along with its Austrian, Czech and Finnish counterparts – is keen to put the brakes on the EU’s plans.” Der Spiegel’s contention is in line with December statements made by Finland Security Minister Petteri Orpo regarding the importance of civilian semi-auto use to their national defense, and reports that the Czech Republic has significant concerns with the proposed changes. Further, Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, and Spain have all issued formal comments on the proposal.

Having been adopted by the European Commission, the proposed changes to the Firearms Directive are currently under the jurisdiction of the European Parliament’s Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO), chaired by MEP Vicky Ford of the UK’s Conservative Party. IMCO has released a timetable for their work on the proposal. The next major event in the timetable is a scheduled “first exchange of views” on February 23, followed by a hearing on this matter March 14-15.

It is deplorable that the EU would seek to further restrict access to firearms when so many Europeans are finding it necessary to exercise their human right to self-defense. Thankfully, diverse members of the European shooting community, including shooting and hunting organizations, members of the firearms industry, and military officials are coalescing to oppose the changes to EU firearm law. NRA has been, and will continue to be, in contact with members of the European shooting community regarding this matter. Moreover, NRA will continue to monitor the situation as it unfolds in the European Parliament and keep our members informed of important developments.

“F” Stands for Fail: Georgia College Instructor Boots Uniformed Cop, Gets Lectured in Return

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: February 7, 2016

Colleges usually take great pride in proclaiming their “diversity” and “inclusiveness,” but simply wearing a tool of his trade was cause enough for one uniformed police officer to be excluded from a class he was taking at Darton State College in Albany, Georgia.

While details are lacking, several press accounts (exemplified by this Fox News report) from the past week recount the strange tale of the officer being escorted from class because the instructor was uncomfortable that a gun was in the classroom. To date, neither the officer nor the instructor has been identified.

It does not appear that the instructor’s “discomfort” was due to any threatening or disruptive behavior by the officer. Indeed, the school has since apologized to the officer for the incident. Fox News went on to report that the school’s Interim Provost and Vice President for Academic and Student Affairs characterized the incident as a “misunderstanding” and stated, “We have met with the faculty and staff involved to reiterate the Georgia Law and Darton Policy.” While Darton State College generally bans firearms from campus, it makes an exception for police officers.

It’s unfortunately true that most colleges and universities ban staff and students from carrying firearms on their campuses. It’s also true that these bans have done absolutely nothing to stop those who have committed firearm-related crimes on campuses. If anything, the bans simply ensure that people who have a mind to commit such crimes have a relatively open, densely-populated place to do so unimpeded.

This has led to an increasing movement to level the playing field on behalf of potential victims through the recognition of their right to carry on campus. Such efforts are invariably and vigorously opposed by academics who claim that firearms are incompatible with the learning environment. These same academics, strangely, are unmoved by arguments that violence against innocent, helpless victims is also incompatible with the learning environment.

One would hope that these debates would proceed soberly and rationally, and with a strong emphasis on sound empirical evidence. This is, after all, supposed to concern “higher education.”

More often, unfortunately, these debates simply display the educational establishment’s emotional and unexamined distaste for firearms and their owners, views grounded more in cultural and political orthodoxy and bigotry than in application of anyone’s higher faculties. As Albany Police Chief Michael Persely said, “Some people feel threatened by the sight of a gun, no matter who possesses it.”

That’s not rational, and it’s certainly not inclusive, especially considering that over 40% the American population lives in a household with a firearm. We should expect more from the people who are responsible for America’s institutions of higher learning.

Legal decision casts doubt on Maryland’s assault weapons ban (CuBlowmo is Nervous)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: February 5, 2016


A federal appeals court on Thursday cast doubt on the legality of Maryland’s 2013 ban on semiautomatic high-capacity assault weapons that passed after the mass shootings at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school.

The 2-to-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit sends the gun-control law back to a lower court for review, but allows the existing ban to remain in place.

Chief Judge William B. Traxler Jr., writing for the majority, found that the Maryland law “significantly burdens the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home” and should have been analyzed using a more stringent legal standard.

The law bans more than 45 types of assault weapons in addition to high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Proponents said such weapons are disproportionately used in acts of mass violence and rarely for self-defense.

A federal law banning assault weapons expired in 2004, but six other states, including California, Massachusetts and New York, have similar bans.

Read More…

Marco Rubio: In immigration reform, legalization comes first — ‘It is not conditional’ (Amnesty Scumbag)

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: February 3, 2016

Rubio Waterboy

In a Spanish-language interview Sunday with the network Univision, Sen. Marco Rubio, the leading Republican on the Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform group, made his strongest statement yet that legalization of the nation’s estimated 11 million illegal immigrants must happen before any new border security or internal enforcement measures are in place, and will in no way be conditional on any security requirements.

Read More…

McAuliffe’s Cave On Concealed Carry In VA Suggests Problems For Clinton in Iowa

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: February 3, 2016


Mike Bloomberg was a major campaign contributor to both Herring and McAuliffe, and so it is likely that Herring’s severing of reciprocity was a bit of quid pro quo. Clearly, neither McAuliffe nor Herring expected the massive flood of anger that resulted from Herring’s stunt, and which apparently necessitated not just a partial retreat, but a full surrender on the issue.

The revelation of how far these anti-gun Democrats were forced to retreat comes on the day of the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, were Republicans and Democrats will see the first voting take place in the 2016 primaries.

Read More…

Bernie Sanders is a Communist and an Ignoramus

Categories: Activism, Education, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: February 3, 2016

Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has been getting away for years with describing himself as a socialist, when in reality he is an outright America-hating communist.

This belief in communism is reflected in the Sanders platform. Even a brief glance reveals his plan to be hopelessly utopian and insane. It will extinguish freedom and shutter businesses and cause widespread suffering especially among the poor people he claims to want to help. It is a program for exporting the best and the brightest to places that appreciate them.

But identifying Sanders as a communist can be a risky proposition in modern-day America. The Left so dominates American culture that the word communist itself has become jarring, not because communism is bad but instead because leftists believe communism is good.

Read More…

The harder it is to buy a pistol, the more New Yorkers want to get one (Westside Range Featured!)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: February 1, 2016


Darren Leung would rather his neighbors in Queens didn’t know what he does for a living. “I tell them I work for the Sanitation Department,” he said. “I don’t want somebody knocking on my door in the middle of the night saying, ‘You gotta help me.’”

Leung prefers to keep a low profile because he is, by his own account, New York City’s largest gun dealer. Last year, he sold 400 guns to licensed buyers from his shop at Westside Rifle & Pistol Range, in the basement of a Flatiron district building.

That may not be a lot of guns, but Leung doesn’t have a lot of competitors. Westside is one of only 21 licensed firearms dealers in this city of 8.4 million, according to the New York Police Department, and his is one of only two shops in Manhattan that deals legally in handguns.

Read More…

Chief Justice Barack Obama? (Why We Must Win The White House in 2016)

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: January 30, 2016


Here’s perhaps the most compelling argument we’ve heard against Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House.

Continuing her streak of adopting terrible (and perhaps planted) suggestions raised at campaign stops, Clinton on Tuesday called the appointment of Barack Obama to the U.S. Supreme Court “a great idea,” according to an article in the Washington Examiner.

Should that happen, Obama’s continued assault on the rights of America’s gun owners could last for decades.

As a Supreme Court justice, he would have the power he has always craved as president to “fundamentally transform” America by issuing proclamations about the meaning and scope of the Constitution, all without pesky voters or members of Congress interfering with his plans.

Hillary Clinton has already stated that she believes the Supreme Court was “wrong” to declare that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. There is little doubt that Obama would pass Clinton’s Second Amendment litmus test if she is elected and has the chance to appoint individuals to the Supreme Court.

Obama, meanwhile, has admitted “the Second Amendment” is “there written on the paper,” while at the same time praising the confiscatory gun control of Australia and Great Britain. He has also called his inability to push gun control through Congress the thing that has made him “most frustrated” as president.

In other words, he has spoken out of both sides of his mouth on the Second Amendment as president, and there’s no reason to believe he would change course as a Supreme Court justice. It would be little comfort to have an individual right under the Second Amendment if that right allowed for the sort of gun bans and enforced surrender of once lawful property that have plagued firearm owners in democracies with no recognition of an individual right to keep and bear arms.

This future, fortunately, is not set in stone. You can ensure that Barack Obama espouses his constitutional theories only in speaking engagements at universities and law schools, rather than from the bench, by electing candidates who believe in the Founders’ Constitution.

Hillary Clinton has made clear that she and Barack Obama would be a package deal. Remember that come November.

Two-Faced Hillary Adjusts Her Gun Control Message and Volume for Different Audiences

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: January 30, 2016


Hillary Clinton is not known for her sincerity and forthrightness.

In fact, a poll conducted last September by Suffolk University/USA Today demonstrated that more than one in five voters associate some term of deceitfulness with Clinton, including “liar,” “dishonest,” “untrustworthy,” and “fake.” This followed an earlier Quinnipiac University poll that found, “’Liar’ is the first word that comes to mind more than others in an open-ended question when voters think of Clinton.” And that one followed similar findings from CNN/ORC International. Et cetera.

Like Abraham Lincoln said, “you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

But you can’t fault Hillary Clinton for trying her level best to do just that.

Regular observers of Hillary Clinton know for a fact she is no fan of the Second Amendment. We know, for example, she thinks the Supreme Court was “wrong” to declare that it’s an individual right, that self-defense is its “core” purpose, and that it prohibits the government at all levels from banning handguns. We also know that she is open to the idea of a mandatory, nationwide surrender of firearms, along the lines of what Australia did.

So we can at least credit her for being honest about that.

Well, sort of, anyway.

Those statements are now part of the public record, and we’ll gladly remind the public of them every chance we get.

But not everybody follows politics closely … not even everybody who votes.

So Hillary Clinton is counting on Americans to have short memories and limited awareness during the general election this year.

For now, she is willing to pander to her base and try to position herself to the left of primary challenger Bernie Sanders by harping on gun control … at least some of the time. She believes that message will resonate with the much smaller and more ideologically-oriented segment of the population that chooses a candidate in the primary election. But will she be singing the same tune if (and likely when) she faces the general electorate in a bid for the White House?

Not if a recent Associated Press (AP) analysis of her primary political ads is any indication. As an article in the D.C. Caller put it, “The Hillary Clinton campaign wants to both highlight her staunch support of gun control laws, but also obscure those views in places where it may hurt her at the polls.”

According to the AP, 1 of every 4 of her televised political ads in New Hampshire touts her support for tougher gun control. Meanwhile, in Iowa, only in 1 in 17 ads mention Clinton’s support for stronger gun control and in a less strident way. As University of Iowa Professor Tim Hagle opined to the AP, “It may have to do with the polls and that the hunting tradition is stronger here in Iowa.”

In other words, Hillary is being what is commonly called – in the world of normal human interaction, where people don’t routinely misrepresent themselves to each other wherever it might offer a perceived advantage – “two-faced.”

Remember that when Hillary Clinton is talking to the nation as a whole (and not just her party’s most ideologically-motivated base) about what she supposedly believes and what she supposedly would do as president.

Even if certain primary voters support Hillary’s gun control agenda, America at large does not. That being so, you can count on Clinton to be more muted about her radical designs to disarm the populace when she’s trying to bamboozle her way back to Pennsylvania Avenue. Rest assured, we do not intend to let her pull the wool over America’s eyes on this point.

Air Force Establishes Gun Carrying Programs

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: January 30, 2016

“Rangers Lead the Way” has been the motto of U.S. Army Rangers since June 6, 1944, when the 5th Ranger Infantry Battalion did precisely that on Omaha Beach. However, when it comes to allowing military personnel to carry firearms to protect themselves, their families, their fellow troops, and visitors from terrorist attacks on military bases in the United States, the U.S. Air Force may be at the tip of the spear.

In response to the terrorist attack on military facilities in Chattanooga last year, the Air Force has reminded base commanders that they can authorize personnel to carry weapons on-duty and off-duty, and has established armed personnel programs to increase base security. Fox News reports, “the Unit Marshal Program enables commanders at every level to work with security forces to train Air Force members and allow them to open carry their [Beretta] M9 service pistol at their duty location. The Security Forces Staff Arming program enables more security officers to carry a government-issued weapon while on duty.”

Polls consistently show that Americans have greater confidence in the military than in other public institutions. And while best known for its aircraft, the Air Force has a strong background and current history where guns are concerned. The Air Force was the first branch of the military to push for the adoption of the M16 in the 1960s. Its Combat Control, Pararescue, and Security Forces personnel are among our troops most highly trained with small arms. And terrorists overseas have been very familiar with the guns operated by Air Force AC-130 crews.

It was therefore near certain that any opposition to the increased carrying of firearms by Air Force personnel would come from the farthest edge of the political fringe.

Enter Ladd Everitt, of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, formerly known as the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. Proving why gun control supporters have no business describing any of their ideas as “common sense,” Everitt reacted to the Air Force’s initiative, saying “Don’t hold your breath waiting for them [Air Force personnel] to embrace America’s degenerate gun culture. They won’t, and thank God, given the potential implications for national defense.”

We’re not sure what’s in the water over at the Coalition, but we trust the brave men and women serving in the Air Force to make the right decisions when it comes to defense of themselves and others.

Training Schedule

01/30/16 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

02/13/16 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

02/27/16 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

03/12/16 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

03/26/16 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

04/09/16 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

04/23/16 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

05/07/16 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

Current Episode

"Cruz 2016!"


Trump-Cruz 2016!

The only candidates 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 and Ted Reignite the Promise of America!

Discount NRA Membership
Join The NRA and Get $10 off a Yearly Membership!
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 Monday, February 8, 2016