New York City Guns archive
Category : Education

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

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

silentmajority

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

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

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

Read More…

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

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

swillery

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

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

Read More…

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

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

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

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

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

Read More…

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

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

hillaryguns

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

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

Read More…

Top 10 States for Machine Gun Ownership

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

remote-2

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

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

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

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

Read More…

Symbolic Gesture Illustrates Idiocy of Background Check Law

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

gunz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brit Gun Amnesty Gone Wrong

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

uk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

myths

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

whoreojima

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In other words, an outright gun ban.

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

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

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

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

fail

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Libturd Professor: Take Granny’s Gun!

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

retard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More…

John Lott, BJS Surveys and ATF Data Undercut Everytown’s Claims about Expanded Background Checks

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

crimegoaway

It’s a good thing for Hillary Clinton that Michael Bloomberg decided against running for president this year. If America’s self-appointed uber-Nanny had thrown his hat in the ring, he would have made Clinton work overtime to retain her title as the least trusted presidential candidate in American history. As the Washington Post reportedon July 25, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump “now has a large lead on Clinton when it comes to honesty and trustworthiness.”

Bloomberg would also trail Trump in terms of honestly presenting the facts if he were judged on the basis of the claims that his anti-gun activist organization, Everytown, is making in its campaign for expanded background checks on firearm transfers.

Everytown is continuing to push for expanded background checks at the congressional level, of course. Legislation proposing that gun control restriction was defeated in the Senate in 2013 and in June this year. However, Bloomberg’s group is also behind the efforts to get state-level expanded checks imposed through ballot initiatives in Maine and Nevada that will be voted on in November.

Everytown’s propaganda in support of those initiatives centers around the group’s claim that states that have imposed a background check requirement on private (non-dealer) transfers of firearms have lower murder rates, including the murder of women in domestic violence circumstances and of law enforcement officers while on duty.

However, as economist John Lott explains in his new book, The War on Guns: Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies, 22 of 24 statistical comparisons related to changes in the murder rate against women and law enforcement officers showed “no change in crimes or suicides as a result of . . . new background checks.” Only two of the comparisons showed statistically significant results. Lott says, “One showed that states with expanded background checks on transfers had a large increase in police gun deaths. The other showed a relatively miniscule drop in total suicides. But even these results are no longer statistically significant when other factors are taken into account. The bottom line is that these background checks on private transfers don’t help. Economists, criminologists, and public health researchers have yet to find that the Brady background checks did anything to reduce violent crime. Additional checks aren’t the solution.”

Lott also calculated differences in murder rates generally, and found “murders are 49 percent higher and robberies are 75 percent higher in states with expanded background checks. . . . When you examine all the states [that require background checks on private firearm transfers], there is no evidence to be found that these background checks affect murder rates.”

It’s no surprise that background checks on private transfers don’t reduce murder rates, because requiring a background check before a gun is transferred doesn’t prevent criminals from getting guns. Federal surveys of state prison inmates who are behind bars because they committed crimes with guns have consistently shown that the majority of those criminals acquired their guns through theft, the black market, or various acquaintances. The most recent such survey (see p. 13, Table 14) for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) found that 40 percent of the inmates got guns through theft or another “street/ illegal source,” 37.4 percent from family members or friends, 9.9 percent from stores, and 0.8 percent from gun shows.

In its survey this year, the BJS is attempting to determine what percentage of those gun acquisitions were accomplished by straw purchasers. No one should be surprised if the new survey finds that the role of straw purchasers in those acquisitions is high. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has reported (p. 10) that “Nearly 50 percent of the ATF investigations [of illegally trafficked firearms] involved firearms being trafficked by straw purchasers either directly or indirectly.”

The battle against expanded background checks will continue until the public grasps that checks don’t stop criminals from getting guns, and stopping criminals from getting guns begins and ends not with increased gun control incursions upon people’s right to arms, but with enforcement of existing laws against straw purchasing, trafficking, and theft.

Second, expanded background checks pose a danger to the right to keep and bear arms to the extent that they lay the groundwork for nationwide gun registration, which is undoubtedly the reason that gun control supporters have made expanded checks their priority.

European Gun Sales Surge Amid Terrorist Threat, Refugee Immigration

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

boom

A number of European countries have seen their gun sales take off as people feel insecure after the recent wave of terror.

Weapon sellers in several countries attribute the rise to terror attacks and the mass arrival of refugees over the past year. Applications for gun permits have gone up significantly in Switzerland, Austria and the Czech Republic. In places with stricter gun laws, such as Germany, non-lethal guns and pepper spray have become alternatives.

“There’s no official explanation for the rise, but in general we see a connection to Europe’s terrorist attacks,” Hanspeter Kruesi, a police spokesman in the Swiss canton of St. Gallen, told Reuters.

Read More…

Shock in NJ: Christie Vetoes Propose Deleting “Justifiable Need” As a Carry Permit Requirement, and Clean Repeal of the Smart Gun Law Mandate with No Strings Attached!

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

cold-dead-hands-courtesy-1.bp_.blogspot.com_

In a blockbuster announcement today, Governor Christie conditionally vetoed two pieces of anti-gun legislation (A3689 and S816), imposing dramatic conditions that would change them into pro-gun measures establishing shall-issue right-to-carry and repealing New Jersey’s 2002 “smart gun” law mandate with no strings attached.

Copies of the vetoes are available here and here.

The “conditional veto” procedure allows the governor to reject legislation that reaches his desk and propose a re-written version to the legislature.  If the legislature concurs in the conditions imposed by the governor, then the measure as re-written becomes law immediately.  Otherwise, the legislation dies.

“Governor Christie has made a bold and defiant statement to the legislature in support of the Second Amendment,” said ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach. “Not only has he rejected their medieval schemes to block self-defense, but he has fired back in a way that forces them to choose squarely between citizen empowerment or victimization in the post-Orlando era of terror attacks on U.S. soil.”

“One inescapable truth is that government cannot protect you when evil strikes,” continued Bach. “The only solution is citizen empowerment, and it is the legal, moral and Constitutional imperative of government to facilitate and not block self-defense.”

Read More…

Training Schedule
CLICK PRICE FOR DETAILS

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

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

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

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

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

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

NYCG Radio

Current Episode

"Alt Right Fight"

#182 - Alt Right Fight


Trump 2016!

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

Real Gun Facts
Discount NRA Membership
Join The NRA and Get $10 off a Yearly Membership!
NYCG Gear
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 Saturday, August 27, 2016