New York City Guns archive
Category : News

Why Women Decide To Purchase A Firearm, And It’s Not Because Of Pink Guns

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: March 29, 2015

Image Credit: interacc

 

With domestic violence statistics continuing to rise, we need to address some of these social issues and take action to educate, prevent and partner with organizations working to make a difference. The majority of women should be purchasing firearms for sport, not because they need to defend themselves from their spouse or significant other. The color of the gun is of little concern.

Read More…

thumbWoman Tells Bloomturd’s Everytown: Quit Using My Sister, A Gun Would Have Saved Her!

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: March 29, 2015

Bloomturd Despondent

In 2013, Jessie Doyle Cavett was shot and killed by her estranged husband, Josh Cavett. When Everytown for Gun Safety recently called Jessie’s sister–Jennie Cochran–to get permission to use the story to push gun control, Cochran told them not to use the story “for anything.”

She told Everytown that gun control simply “makes more victims,” and she doesn’t want her sister’s story used to do that.

Speaking to Fox News on February 4, Cochran said the only thing that would have saved her sister was a gun. She said, “There’s no way the police would have gotten there in time had she just dialed 911.”

Read More…

Bloomturd’s Moms Demand Action Loses: Gov. Texas Governor Will Sign Open Carry Into Law!

Categories: Activism, Legal, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: March 29, 2015

Image Credit: buckmire

 

Governor Greg Abbott (R) handed Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America another loss on February 17 when he announced that he will indeed sign open carry into law, thereby “[making] Texas the 45th state to allow Open Carry.”

Read More…

MSNBC: Everytown Now Relegated To Keeping Count Of NRA Victories

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: March 29, 2015

Bloomturd Guns

On March 27 MSNBC reported the number of states considering Campus Carry has grown so great that Everytown for Gun Safety has made “March Madness”-like brackets to keep up with what the NRA is accomplishing across the country.

Everytown labeled the brackets “NRA Madness” and is inviting interested persons to sign up and fill out the brackets with an X in the appropriate blanks as Campus Carry either passes or fails from state-to-state.

According to MSNBC, for everyone who signs up for “NRA Madness” Everytown will “send a postcard to the governors or state leaders in the targeted states, urging them to reject the measures.”

Read More…

 

Haters Of Self-Defense Face Unrelenting Defeat Everywhere

Categories: Activism, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: March 29, 2015

Image Credit: deafcactusnews

 

Opponents of the Second Amendment and haters of self-defense are facing a relentless barrage of pro-Second Amendment and pro-self-defense legislation in state legislatures across the country.

It is as if the GOP took a page out of the Democrats’ book–improved, then applied it–so that just as the Democrats flooded legislatures with gun control measures in early 2013, Republicans are now flooding legislatures with bills broadening the exercise of Second Amendment rights and protecting the use of firearms for self-defense.

The move was evident on February 18 when Breitbart News reported a New York Times admission that Republican legislators from state-to-state were gaining “traction” by pushing Campus Carry as a way for women to fight rape and sexual assault. Since that time, Campus Carry has advanced in Arkansas, Florida, Texas, and Nevada, and is being considered in approximately 10 other states.

Read More…

Obama’s Rule Change May Devastate International Travel for Hunters and Shooters

Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: March 28, 2015

Image Credit: NRA

 

The Obama administration’s relentless assault on the Second Amendment continues as the State Department implements a new rule which catches American hunters and sport shooters in a web of bureaucratic red-tape when traveling outside the United States. Coming close on the heels of the withdrawn BATFE ammo ban we reported on last week, an unmistakable pattern of abuse is beginning to emerge, suggesting Obama’s last two years could prove the most challenging period in history for America’s gun owners.

Exporting firearms and ammunition from the U.S. normally requires a license–from the State Department for rifles, handguns, and rifle or handgun ammunition, and from the Commerce Department for shotguns and shotshells. But for many years, the State Department’s International Trafficking in Arms Regulations (ITAR) have allowed Americans to temporarily export up to three non-automatic firearms and up to 1,000 rounds of ammunition without a permit, as long as the firearms were declared and presented to a Customs officer. This was done by bringing the firearms to a Customs office at some point before the trip and completing Customs Form 4457–a form that can be completed for any personal property and that is normally used to prove that the traveler owned the property before going abroad, thus protecting the traveler from paying import duties on items already owned. The traveler would retain the form and present it upon reentry if needed.

But a 2012 State Department rule change added an important new requirement that the traveler declare rifles or handguns “upon each departure” by presenting documentation generated through the Commerce Department’s “Automated Export System” (AES)–an online reporting tool designed for use by businesses. (Non-“combat” shotguns are not regulated by the State Department, so the AES requirement does not apply to temporary shotgun exports.) The rule change was buried in a Federal Register notice aimed at authorizing the temporary export of gas masks by government employees and contractors.

Fortunately, the change was never enforced—until now. In postings on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) website and in internal ICE documents obtained by NRA-ILA, ICE makes clear that it has begun enforcing the rule change. Form 4457 may no longer be used for firearms, and electronic declarations will be the norm.

However, ICE’s internal documents implicitly acknowledge that individuals are currently unable to use the AES because the system requires entry of an Employer Identification Number. Those numbers are normally only obtained by businesses, and the Internal Revenue Service says they should only be used for tax purposes.

Fortunately for travelers who are unaware of these requirements or unable to use the AES, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has,for the moment, implemented a stopgap plan under which Customs officers at airports can manually enter identifying information about the traveler and the firearm. While this may prevent travel plans from being ruined, it also raises questions about how long the information will be kept and how it might be used. It is unclear how long this alternative will be available. It is also unclear how the new rules may be enforced in non-airport situations–for example, hunters who drive to Canada for the upcoming spring bear season.

The NRA, along with other groups representing hunters and sport shooters, are working on an emergency rule change to solve these problems. If necessary, the NRA will also pursue shorter-term administrative changes to prevent immediate headaches, and will also consider the potential need for a long-term solution through federal legislation.

In anticipation of the need for a legislative fix, NRA members are urged to contact their U.S. Representative and Senators and voice their opposition to the State Department’s new implementation scheme. American law-abiding gun owners traveling to hunt or shoot competitively are not “exporters” under any reasonable understanding of what that term is intended to mean.

You can contact your U.S. Representative or Senators by using our “Write Your Lawmakers” tool at www.NRAILA.org, or by phone at (202) 224-3121.

Anti-Gun Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid to Step Down

Categories: Activism, Education, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: March 28, 2015

Image Credit: Scooters Report

 

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) explains his shocking decision to not seek re-election and retire when his term ends in 2016 by telling the New York Times, “he was worried his race would consume campaign money that would be needed in other competitive states as Democrats try to regain control of the Senate.”

“I think it is unfair for me to be soaking up all the money to be re-elected with what we are doing in Maryland, in Pennsylvania, in Missouri, in Florida,” Reid told the Times.

Reid said neither his recent eye injury nor concern over his chances of winning played a factor in his decision.

But the real reason Reid is retiring may have nothing to do with any of these excuses and everything to do with his concerns that a possible Republican Presidential victory in 2016 would lead to the appointment of a Republican Attorney General in January 2017.

Read More…

“Choke Point” Hearings Yield Predictable Responses From FDIC Chairman

Categories: Activism, Legal, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: March 28, 2015

Image Credit: NRA

Last year, we began reporting on the Obama administration’s “Operation Choke Point” and the use of federal financial services regulators to harass and intimidate banks and financial service providers who maintain relationships with legal but so-called “high risk” merchants or businesses. By leaning on the banks, the regulators hope to cause them to sever relationships with these businesses, thereby choking off their cash flow and forcing them out of the market.

These businesses include retailers of firearms and ammunition, a number of which have found their banking relationships abruptly severed with little or no explanation and without reference to anything the individual businesses did or did not do. Earlier this year, a congressional report based on examination of nearly 900 internal DOJ documents found that the operation’s adverse effect on legitimate businesses was not merely an unintended side-effect but the outcome of a deliberate attempt to target entire business sectors that, while legal, were deemed objectionable by regulators.

One of the main federal entities being used to “choke” firearm businesses is the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The FDIC was created during the New Deal in 1933 to guarantee the security of bank deposits, and has extensive supervisory and examination authority over banks and the many federal laws that banks must follow.

As we reported last October, a coalition of congressional representatives led by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.) had requested internal investigators at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to conduct formal inquiries into Operation Choke Point, as well as any officials and staff involved in the program.

On March 24, 2015, the Committee on Financial Services’ Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee held a hearing entitled “The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Role in Operation Choke Point” where the sole witness was the Honorable Martin J. Gruenberg, Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wis.), Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, asked a series of probing questions and referenced multiple supporting FDIC documents revealing that ammunition and firearm sales and dealers had, in fact, been targeted.

“The bottom line is, you’re putting innocent people out of business and all of the people at the FDIC who are implementing this program still work there. They haven’t been fired and they haven’t been reprimanded,” Rep. Duffy said. “These folks have no place in government – and if you allow them to stay – you have no place in government,” Duffy concluded.

Several other members, including Rep. Luetkemeyer, asked questions pertaining to Operation Choke Point as a whole.

Unfortunately, though predictably, Gruenberg’s responses were vague and non-committal, and displayed a disregard for the law-abiding businesses that are being forced out of existence due to their loss of financial support from banking institutions. The FDIC has clearly exerted pressure on financial institutions to cease relationships with what the FDIC deems as “prohibitive businesses.”

This is another clear example of overreach, by another Obama appointee, intended to curtail the Second Amendment.

In order to fight such abuse, Rep. Luetkemeyer has re-introduced NRA-supported H.R. 766–the “Financial Institution Customer Protection Act”. This legislation would institute numerous reforms to bring more transparency and accountability to federal oversight of banks; all aimed at preventing the sort of unchecked abuse of discretion at the heart of Operation Choke Point.

Please contact your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to SUPPORT H.R. 766

You can contact your U.S. Representative by using our “Write Your Lawmakers” tool at www.NRAILA.org, or by phone at (202) 224-3121.

California: The Battle for Shall Issue is On!

Categories: Activism, Legal, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: March 28, 2015

On March 26, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that Peruta v. San Diego will be re-heard by an eleven-judge “en banc” panel. In February 2014, the NRA and CRPA sponsored Peruta case resulted in a monumental ruling by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. That decision held that the San Diego County Sheriff’s policy of refusing to issue licenses to carry firearms in public unless an applicant could demonstrate a special need was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment.

After Attorney General Kamala Harris and the gun ban lobby learned that Sheriff Gore had decided not to appeal the case further (even though he refused to change his policy), the Attorney General and several anti-gun groups filed requests to join the litigation and continue litigating the appeal as parties to the case. The three-judge panel denied each of the intervention requests. In December 2014, the Attorney General and the anti-gun-rights groups filed requests for en banc review of the decision to deny them entry into the case.

Also in December 2014, at least one Ninth Circuit judge made a “sua sponte” (or on the Court’s own accord) request for all Ninth Circuit judges to vote on whether the Peruta case itself should be reheard en banc, regardless of whether the Attorney General would be allowed to join the case.

Today, the Court issued an order confirming that a majority of Ninth Circuit judges voted to rehear Peruta en banc. The Court has set oral arguments for June 15, 2015. The Court also ordered that the related case of Richards v. Prieto, which was decided under the reasoning outlined in Peruta, will be heard along with the Peruta case on June 15.

No matter what happens as a result of the rehearing en banc, either side will almost certainly petition a loss to the U.S. Supreme Court.

For those who are interested in learning more about this critical Second Amendment case, NRA News has produced an outstanding video and the America’s First Freedom magazine published an enlightening article about the case.

A Court Battle Already Paying Dividends

The most common method used nationally by states and localities to selectively deny a person their Second Amendment right to carry a firearm for self-defense is to create a subjective licensing prerequisite. Requiring a demonstration of “good cause” or its equivalent before a license will be issued is such a method, because if you have to show “good cause,” then you must prove a special “need” to carry a firearm. This creates a subjective system prone to political cronyism and corruption, which is the way California’s “good cause” system has been working for years. Reform is long overdue.

As a result of the 3-judge panel’s decision in Peruta, several California counties that had policies similar to San Diego’s have changed those policies from a restrictive “good cause” standard that few could meet, to one that accepts general self-defense as “good cause,” which most anyone can meet. Orange and Ventura counties are among the California jurisdictions that have changed their ways since the Peruta decision was issued. Previously, applicants had to show proof of specific threats, such as a police report or a protective order, to prove they were in immediate danger before they could get a license. Since the Peruta decision, these counties have generally been accepting self-defense as “good-cause” for obtaining a license.

If the Peruta decision is upheld by the en banc panel, all of the states and territories in the Ninth Circuit would also have to review their license issuance policies, and revise them to conform to the Peruta decision. The Ninth Circuit includes Alaska and Arizona (“constitutional carry” states), Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington (“shall issue” states). It also includes Guam, which has already changed its policy in light of Peruta. And it includes California and Hawaii, the outliers.

We need to hold onto the victory in Peruta so that these policies go into effect throughout California and the entire Ninth Circuit! But the Peruta decision’s persuasive influence is not limited to the Ninth Circuit territories and states. Recently, in the case ofPalmer v. District of Columbia, a federal court relied heavily on the Peruta decision as precedent for its opinion striking down D.C.’s total ban on the public carrying of firearms. Significantly, the ban at issue in Palmer was more extreme than the California policy challenged in the Peruta case.

Nevertheless, the Palmer court cited to Peruta extensively, suggesting that the D.C. court is warning D.C. lawmakers that they should not adopt a California style “good cause” licensing scheme, because it will face the same fate as the one struck down in Peruta. Without the Peruta opinion as precedent, it is doubtful that the D.C. court would have gone so far.

The Next Fight Looms

If the eleven-judge en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit reverses the three-judge panel’s decision, Mr. Peruta and the other plaintiffs will appeal to the Supreme Court, with continued support from the NRA, CRPA, and their legal teams. And, although the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller ruling didn’t need to address the specific issues of carrying outside the home, much less “good cause” for a license to do so, victory at the Supreme Court is possible given observations about bearing arms in the Court’s Heller decision, and the difficulty the Court would have in affirming the existence of one half of a fundamental right (to keep arms) but not the other (to bear arms).

If the en banc court affirms the decision that requiring a special need to carry a firearm is an unconstitutional restriction, the anti-gun forces have the option of appealing to the Supreme Court, which is likely.

Supreme Court Bound?

The Peruta case presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to settle some Second Amendment issues that desperately need resolving. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed with the principles, though not the specific details, of the Peruta ruling in another NRA-supported case of Shepard v. Madigan and the related case of Moore v. Madigan. In these cases challenging Illinois’ ban on bearing arms in public, the Seventh Circuit Court held that prohibiting any form of carrying arms in public was unconstitutional. Rather than risk having the ruling confirmed by the Supreme Court, Illinois did not seek Supreme Court review. Meanwhile, three other circuit courts have gone the opposite direction and held that there is effectively no right to bear arms outside the home: Kachalsky v. Cacace in the Second Circuit (New York), Drake v. Filko in the Third Circuit (New Jersey) and Woollard v. Gallagher in the Fourth Circuit (Maryland). The Supreme Court was asked to review each of those cases, but declined to do so. With this split of opinions among the federal Circuit Courts, the U.S. Supreme Court could take the Peruta case to resolve these critical Second Amendment issues.
Gun Banners Seek Poster Child

Gun owners and carry license holders should be acutely aware that their conduct could be mischaracterized and used to influence the licensing process in California for years to come. The gun ban lobby is waiting and hoping for a license holder to do something that they can spin, politicize, and use to fight against a constitutional shall-issue regime in California. Several years ago in Los Angeles County, an unfortunate incident involving a license holder caused Los Angeles County Sheriff Baca to stop issuing the few licenses that he was issuing at the time. Be careful not to take any action that could be used for the gun ban lobby’s anti-gun-owner PR efforts!

Help Us Help You

Please help us fight for your right to choose to own a gun for sport, or to defend yourself and your family. CRPA and theNRA work together in California to fight for you in Sacramento, in cities and counties across the state, in regulatory agencies, and in the courts. Even with the generous rates that our team of civil rights attorneys, legislative advocates, experts and consultants grant us, these ongoing efforts are still expensive. You can support our pro-Second Amendment efforts in California by donating to the California Rifle & Pistol Association Foundation (CRPAF). CRPAF is a 501(c)(3), so contributions to CRPAF are tax-deductible. Or donate to theNRA Legal Action Project. All donations will be spent to specifically benefit California gun owners.

Please help us fight for your right to choose to own a gun for sport, or to defend yourself and your family. CRPA and theNRA work together in California to fight for you in Sacramento, in cities and counties across the state, in regulatory agencies, and in the courts. Even with the generous rates that our team of civil rights attorneys, legislative advocates, experts and consultants grant us, these ongoing efforts are still expensive. You can support our pro-Second Amendment efforts in California by donating to the California Rifle & Pistol Association Foundation (CRPAF). CRPAF is a 501(c)(3), so contributions to CRPAF are tax-deductible. Or donate to theNRA Legal Action Project. All donations will be spent to specifically benefit California gun owners.

Second Amendment supporters should be careful about supporting litigation or other efforts promised by other individuals and groups that lack the experience, resources, skill, or legal talent to be successful. The NRA and CRPA national team of highly regarded civil rights attorneys, legislative advocates, and scholars has the experience, resources, skill and expertise needed to maximize the potential for victory in California’s often hostile political environments.

For a summary of some of the many actions the NRA and CRPA has taken on behalf of California gun owners, including the Peruta case, click here.

Arguments Held in Challenge to Maryland’s Firearm and Magazine Ban

Categories: Legal, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: March 28, 2015

As we reported last August, a federal district court judge in Maryland had upheld the state’s wide-ranging 2013 law that banned America’s most popular rifle, among other common firearms, along with magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition.

The plaintiffs in the case, Kolbe v. O’Malley, appealed that ruling, and oral arguments on the appeal were held Wednesday before the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia. The briefs in the case, filed by the parties and “friends of the court”, are available at this link. Audio of the argument may be accessed from the Fourth Circuit’s website.

John Parker Sweeney, arguing for the plaintiffs, emphasized that the Maryland law imposes an outright ban on firearms kept by law-abiding persons in their homes for lawful purposes, including self-defense. This, Mr. Sweeney noted, was the very issue the U.S. Supreme Court squarely decided against the District of Columbia in the historic 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller. Nor, Mr. Sweeney reminded the Fourth Circuit judges, did the Supreme Court accept the District’s argument that because rifles and shotguns could theoretically be possessed (although only in a nonfunctional state), could handguns be banned. Instead, the Supreme Court deferred to the judgment of the American people as to what firearms best suit their needs. The state of Maryland admits, he told the court, that the firearms banned by the law were the most popular in Maryland.

The attorney for Maryland admitted that the law banned commonly owned items but insisted that alone did not resolve the Second Amendment question. He argued that the law only bans certain specific types of firearms, not a whole class of them, and that the state was justified in doing so because the banned items are “unusually dangerous.”

The judges asked pointed questions of Maryland’s attorney, pressing him, for example, on whether he believed the Second Amendment would also allow a ban on semiautomatic handguns kept in the home for self-defense. After a prolonged period of trying to evade the question, he finally admitted that like a semiautomatic pistol, a six-shot revolver fires one shot per activation of the trigger and such a firearm would be constitutionally protected. He was then asked why, if a handgun that fires one shot per activation of the trigger were protected, a semiautomatic rifle that did the same thing would not be. In response, the attorney insisted that Maryland did not ban all semiautomatic rifles and that Heller’s holding was specific to handguns. Yet this, according to one of the judges on the panel, was simply the converse of the argument that the Supreme Court rejected in Heller, than a handgun ban was okay because some long guns were still available.

The court also noted that unlike in prior cases, the Maryland ban is not limited to presumptively dangerous or irresponsible persons, nor is it simply a time, place, and manner restriction that merely establishes guidelines for where or how a weapon can be possessed or used. That being so, a judge asked, why shouldn’t strict scrutiny be the applicable standard of review? Heller was concerned with self-defense, Maryland’s attorney replied, and the banned firearms and magazines are not needed for that.

In his rebuttal, Mr. Sweeney noted that Heller deferred to what people themselves chose for their own needs and argued that principle should also guide the court’s decision in this case. “For whatever reason,” he said, “millions of Americans have chosen these prohibited firearms,” including for self-defense. “It’s the choice,” Mr. Sweeney told the court, “the people’s choice.” Yet, he said, the state went from a restrictive policy to an outright ban, because the state deemed that more likely to reduce the numbers of these firearms owned by the law-abiding populace. That goes too far, he concluded, and cannot stand.

The case is now in the hands of the Fourth Circuit, which is not required to issue its opinion on any specific timeline. Whatever the court decides, however, a further appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is likely. As ever, your NRA will be following the proceedings closely and giving you the news you need to know as it breaks.

A Tale of Two Faces: Actor Who Glorifies Gun Crime in Video Game Stars in Gun Control Video

Categories: Humor, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: March 28, 2015

Image Credit: NRA

 

Last week, we reported on how the attention-starved gun control group, States United to Prevent Gun Violence (SUPGV) claimed to have deterred first-time gun buyers in New York City with a hidden camera stunt at a phony gun store. Some astute observers later noticed that the actor hired to portray the clerk of the fraudulent gun store was Ned Luke, the same performer who voiced one of the lead characters in the popular and graphically violent video game, Grand Theft Auto V (GTA V). This fact was later confirmed in an article on WashingtonPost.com’s Wonkblog.

In his role for SUPGV, Luke posed as a gun store proprietor and exploited the unfamiliarity many Manhattanites have with firearms. The resulting video shows Luke conveying stories to wide-eyed “customers” about how the different types of firearms in the “store” were involved in tragic or criminal episodes.

Ironically, Luke’s GTA V character is Michael De Santa, a briefly reformed gangster who gets pulled back into a life of crime. Players taking on the role of De Santa are tasked with missions that have them carrying out all manner of nefarious activities involving gunplay, including armed robbery and assassination. When the fictional police of the game attempt to apprehend the character, players are often required to shoot their way through the digital law enforcement ranks. Perhaps even more ironically, one of the criminals Luke mentions in his role as gun store proprietor was himself an avid fan of violent role-playing video games, the same genre as GTA V.

Of course, we know video games of all sorts are enjoyed to no ill-effect by millions of upstanding citizens, including many NRA members. Further, they are protected by the First Amendment, just as are other forms of controversial and sometimes unpopular speech. Nevertheless, as the Post admits, the incongruity of Luke’s divergent roles is “striking.”

The obvious question arises as to whether a person who participates in, and benefits from, the production of violent media which glorifies – and in the context of GTA V’s fictional world even rewards – criminal misuse of firearms should be lecturing others on the supposed evils of guns.

In early 2014, Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, known for producing graphically violent movies such as Rambo IV and Kill Bill, acknowledged the hypocrisy inherent in profiting from this type of content and then advocating for stricter gun controls. Following a verbal attack on NRA and gun manufacturers during an appearance on the Howard Stern Show, the producer went on Piers Morgan Live and responded to his critics (which included your NRA). As reported by Deadline Hollywood, Weinstein admitted, “They have a point. You have to look in the mirror, too. I have to choose movies that aren’t violent or as violent as they used to be. I know for me personally, you know, I can’t continue to do that. The change starts here. It has already. For me, I can’t do it. I can’t make one movie and say this is what I want for my kids and then just go out and be a hypocrite.” Nevertheless, with typical moral fluidity and unaccountability, Weinstein appears more recently to have reverted to his old and profitable habits.

The Post recounted that Luke was “stunned by the angry reaction” some had to his participation in trying to shame would-be gun buyers. Apparently, self-awareness is not on the list of character traits for actors whose roles encompass violent video games or smug anti-gun sermonizing. The Post, for its part, seemed willing to let Luke off the hook for his role in the “clever” ad: “maybe he’s just an actor, playing whatever role he’s assigned.”

Maybe. And if that’s so, whatever cosmic authority is supposedly handing out gun control “assignments” to pliant automatons has been busy lately, nowhere more so than in the pages of newspapers like the Washington Post. For those of us who still believe in free will and personal accountability, however, the answer seems a lot simpler. Ned Luke made his choices, and those choices reveal the hypocrisy we’ve come to expect from the anti-gun contingency within entertainment industry, as well as from its apologists.

Second Amendment Enforcement Act of 2015 Introduced

Categories: Activism, Legal, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: March 28, 2015

Image Credit: historiasextraterrestres

 

This week, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and U.S. Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) introduced “The Second Amendment Enforcement Act of 2015” in the U.S. Senate and House respectively. These bills would restore the fundamental individual right for law-abiding D.C. residents to Keep and Bear Arms to defend themselves in accordance with the law. This bill would also conform D.C. law to federal laws in regards to governing firearms commerce, while also allowing D.C. residents to purchase firearms from licensed dealers in VA and MD, without the current hassle of D.C.’s onerous firearm registration system. The D.C. permitting system would also become streamlined, allowing for more law-abiding D.C. residents to legally obtain a permit and carry concealed firearms for self-defense.

We would like to thank both Sen. Rubio and Rep. Jordan for their steadfast support of the Second Amendment and the introductions of “The Second Amendment Enforcement Act of 2015.”

Please contact your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative and urge them to cosponsor and support “The Second Amendment Enforcement Act of 2015.”

You can contact your U.S. Senators and U.S. Representative by phone at (202) 224-3121 or by using our “Write Your Lawmakers” tool at www.NRAILA.org.

Republicans Marco Rubio & Jim Jordan aim to cut D.C.’s gun restrictions

Categories: Activism, Legal, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: March 28, 2015

Image Credit: panampost

 

Sen. Marco Rubio and Rep. Jim Jordan took aim at the District’s restrictive gun laws on Thursday, introducing bills that would make it easier for residents to buy and carry firearms.

The two Republicans also want to make it harder for the D.C. government to impose burdensome requirements for citizens to obtain firearms or concealed-carry permits, which has been a complaint of gun-rights advocates since the Supreme Court upheld the legal challenge that ended the city’s virtual ban on firearms.

Federal judge shoehorns Bloomturd’s gun control groups into Washington background check suit

Categories: Legal, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: March 28, 2015

Bloomturd Angry

U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin H. Settle on Monday issued an order to allow a number of gun control groups who backed the controversial I-594 ballot initiative to join a lawsuit against it as defendants.

Granted a motion to intervene is gun control advocate Cheryl Stumbo, as well as the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility and the Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund. All were sponsors in the campaign to have Washington’s expanded background check law, which covers most private gun transfer laws, passed by state voters in a ballot referendum last November.

In December, a number of gun rights groups who opposed 594, to include the Second Amendment Foundation, the Northwest School of Safety and the Firearms Academy of Seattle, filed suit against state Attorney General Bob Ferguson and Washington State Patrol Chief John Batiste to defeat the amendment in court.

Read More…

Operation Choke Point Could Be Ending, Second Amendment Activists Rejoice

Categories: Activism, News, Politics
Tags: No Tags
Comments: No Comments
Published on: March 28, 2015

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aYhpWLc7TgE/U4f65ZmBzAI/AAAAAAAAhNM/cn0Mzi6kUfE/s200/operation-chole-point.jpg

Image Credit: arkansasgopwing

 

Operation Choke Point is causing a partisan split in Congress and raising bottom line concerns for a plethora of small businesses across the country. Republican Idaho Senator Mike Crapo has proposed a budget amendment aimed at cutting off funding for the controversial program.

The Senate Budge Committee adopted Crapo’s proposal late last week. Operation Choke Point is program initiated by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation – FDIC. Those opposed to the operation feel that the federal agencies have intimidated banks from engaging in lending and other necessary financial services with specific American businesses. Gun stores and gun manufacturers are reportedly at the top of the list businesses that Operation Choke Point is focusing upon. The Obama administration enacted Operation Choke Point in 2013 with a stated goal of stamping out fraud.

Read More…

Training Schedule
CLICK PRICE TO ENROLL

5/9/15 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

5/23/15 Utah CCW/FS Pistol Class
Westside Range 12-4 PM $150.00

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

7/4/15 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

Current Episode

"CCW Stops Mass Shooters"

#116


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!

NYCG Gear
Real Gun Facts
Welcome , today is Monday, April 27, 2015