Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog A blog for and by Guns and Ammo Enthusiast&#039;s

Baikal MP-153 Shotgun Review

This is an Baikal MP-153 Shotgun Review

6 Mar 10

POLL say MOST AMERICANS SAY CITIES HAVE NO RIGHT TO BAN HANDGUNS

BELLEVUE, WA – A new Rasmussen poll has revealed that an overwhelming majority of Americans reject the notion that cities have a right to ban handguns, siding with the Second Amendment Foundation’s position in its lawsuit to overturn the Chicago ban.

Oral arguments in the SAF case were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. Court observers predict the high court will overturn the Chicago ban, thus incorporating the Second Amendment to state and local governments through provisions in the 14th Amendment. Results from Rasmussen’s national telephone survey found that 69 percent of the respondents say cities have no right to ban legal handgun ownership, while 25 percent believe cities can ban guns.

“The Rasmussen survey clearly shows that Americans have grown weary of anti-gun municipal demagoguery,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “A victory in our case before the Supreme Court should send a clear signal to gun prohibitionists like Chicago Mayor Richard Daley that arbitrarily disarming law-abiding citizens under the guise of fighting crime is an idea that has no place in this country.”

SAF is joined in its case by the Illinois State Rifle Association and four Chicago residents, including Otis McDonald, for whom the Supreme Court case is named.

The Rasmussen poll also found very little difference between current public sentiment and earlier surveys that noted 70 percent of American adults believe the U.S. Constitution guarantees the individual right to own a firearm.

“For years,” Gottlieb said, “the anti-gun lobby has been claiming majority support for its Draconian agenda, but polling data like this new information from Rasmussen shows that the public is not about to surrender a significant civil right. We believe the Supreme Court is on the verge of expanding the scope of that right by applying the Second Amendment to the states.”

4 Mar 10

Another one bits the dust feds and ATFE, South Dakota Legislature Passes Firearms Freedom Bill! Good News for all

Well good news to second amendment, guns, ammo, and hunting fans. Looks like South Dakota may be joining the ranks of states that pass a firearm Freedom Bill.
A bill that declares “exempt from federal regulation any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in South Dakota” passed in the South Dakota House of Representatives today.

SB 89 was approved by a 49-19 vote. The bill had already passed the state Senate on Feb. 18 with a 29-4 vote.

The bill states it would “exempt from federal regulation any firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in South Dakota.” The spirit of the bill hearkens to the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which says

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce, but the firearms and ammunition covered by this bill would not be involved in interstate commerce; it specifies guns and ammo that are manufactured and kept within the state of South Dakota.

A number of states across the country have been working on “Firearms Freedom Acts” which seek to rein in our out-of-control federal government. South Dakota is joining this effort to restore federalism and strengthen our American freedoms.

28 Feb 10

Utah joins the growing list of state telling feds hands off our guns and ammo

On Friday, Utah Governor Gary Herbert finally signed into law SB11, the Utah State-Made Firearms Protection Act. The bill passed both the House and the Senate, then sat on Herbert’s desk for 10 days while the governor debated whether he would sign or veto the bill. Had the governor neither signed nor vetoed the bill by Saturday, it would have automatically gone into effect as law. Herbert said the decision to sign came after careful review of the potential fallout from the controversial legislation.

“There are times when the state needs to push back against continued encroachment from the federal government. Sending the message that we will stand up for a proper balance between the state and federal government is a good thing,” the governor said. “But in these challenging economic times, when Utah families continue to struggle and our Legislature must account for every dollar it spends, we must also be thoughtful about the cost of that message.”

SB11 creates statute that allows guns and ammunition manufactured and sold in Utah to be regulated by the state of Utah, not by the federal government. At its heart, SB11 is a states’ rights bill, not a weapons bill. It lashes out at the federal government and attempts to regain some of the control and power the federal government has usurped from the states through overreaching use of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Senator Margaret Dayton, the bill’s sponsor, said the bill is all about control. But asserting control will likely come with a constitutional challenge. The bill was modeled after Montana’s Firearms Freedom Act, which passed last year, and has since gone into litigation. Litigation was brought against the federal government by a private group who asserts that current interpretation of constitutional law, as it regards to the Interstate Commerce Clause, is incorrect. The federal government has filed a motion to dismiss the matter, which is awaiting a hearing. Tennessee is the only other state that has adopted a similar law.

Governor Herbert has consulted with the state Attorney General and other legal advisers, who assured him that the state can take a stand on this issue of controlling intrastate commerce without incurring onerous legal expenses.

“The attorney general has assured me that, should a legal challenge be filed against the state, his office can take a variety of actions to ensure the defense of this legislation will have a minimal cost to the people of Utah,” said Herbert. “I am satisfied that Utah can stand confidently with other states that are taking a stand against the federal government’s overreach in this area.”

24 Feb 10

If we can not have Switzerland style gun laws, why not Wyoming’s attempt at firearm law?

One small step for Wyoming, one giant leap for gun rights

Wyoming is on the verge of passing two key pieces of gun rights legislation.

HB-95, The Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act, and HB-113 “Alaska-style” permit-less concealed carry, are facing an up-or-down vote before the Wyoming State House of Representatives.

On Tuesday, National Association for Gun Rights Director of Operations Luke O’Dell was on hand to testify before the Wyoming State House Judiciary Committee on behalf of both HB-95, the Wyoming Firearms Freedom Act, and the HB-113, “Alaska-style” permit less carry.

You may be asking yourself, “Why do I care, I don’t live in Wyoming?”

It’s simple: The higher the bar is set, the more pro-gun pieces of legislation pass across the country, the stronger the gun rights movement gets.

Passage of permit-less “Alaska-style” concealed carry in Wyoming would be a huge step forward toward true firearms freedom. Only in Alaska and Vermont can law-abiding citizens carry concealed firearms for their own protection without getting Big Brother’s approval. Should Wyoming join their ranks, the right-to-carry will have taken a major step forward.

Additionally, Wyoming’s Firearms Freedom Act was written with much stronger language than similar legislation in other states. Wyoming’s bill included penalties for state law enforcement enforcing Federal laws which contradict Wyoming state law.

I’m happy to say that Wyoming Gun Owners, a partner of ours, has been leading the charge for both pieces of legislation.

Now it’s our turn to help out.

If you live in Wyoming, or know someone who does, please have them contact their Wyoming legislator and tell them to vote “Yes” on HB-95 and HB-113.

You can find contact information for Wyoming State Legislators here.

If you’re not from Wyoming, go ahead and drop them a line anyways. Tell them that you support their efforts to advance freedom in Wyoming.

And if you’d like to help Wyoming Gun Owners pass this legislation by making a donation, click here.

For Liberty,

20 Feb 10

NRA national riffle association Lie of the year, and boy is it a whopper

This from the NRA-ILA “NRA has always supported applying the Second Amendment to every American. All law-abiding Americans have the fundamental, individual right to self-protection no matter where they live.”

Lets start of by calling this what it is sour grapes. This particular ruling came down by NO effort by the NRA. In fact they had nothing to do with the case. This ruling was brought to us thanks to the SAF Second Amendment Foundation. So NRA nothing to do with it, SAF be praised for it.

Now on to ripping the statement apart. First of all they say “NRA has always supported applying the Second Amendment to every American.” Which is what it was intended for. Every single American no matter what. 200 years ago, every single person could and did own a firearm. Great however these hypocritical moron’s go on to add the final sentence. “All law-abiding Americans have the fundamental, individual right to self-protection no matter where they live.”

There was no intent from the founders to prevent “criminals” from owning firearms. Especially since they them selves were considered criminals by the king of England. Not to mention all the laws they have supported to take firearms out of the hands of the so called “law abiding”. National firearm acts of 1934, 1981, and so on. So lets just call them what they are lying hypocritical fools.

Did I ever mention I HATE being lied to, thought a fool, or considered ignorant?

19 Feb 10

Washington State supreme court ruled on the side of reason visa vie cun rights and the second amendment

Thursday the Washington State Supreme court rulled that the Second Amendment does actually incorporate to the states. Basically the founds of our great nation intended that the second amendment WAS intended for the states not only the federal government. So the second amendment was meant to apply to the to the people and the states. This ruling is thanks to the Second Amendment Foundation. Good job guys.

18 Feb 10

an Idaho lawmaker wants Washington D.C. to keep its mitts – and its laws – off guns and ammunition manufactured in his state

In yet another shot from Idaho over the federal government’s bow, an Idaho lawmaker wants Washington D.C. to keep its mitts – and its laws – off guns and ammunition manufactured in his state.

Rep. Dick Harwood, from St. Maries, introduced the “Idaho Firearms Freedom Act” Thursday in the House State Affairs Committee.
Montana passed a similar bill last year, saying guns made and kept within its borders are exempt from national gun laws. Gun advocates sued in federal court to validate the law, while U.S. attorneys want the case to be dismissed.

Meanwhile, Tennessee passed the same law and legislators in a couple dozen other states are considering following suit.
Harwood, who comes from rural northern Idaho where suspicions of federal agents runs high among some, called this a “sovereignty issue.”

16 Feb 10

Are police forshowding crimes to be commited against lawabiding firearm owners?

You decide and post your thoughts.

Gun rights advocates have a California police detective in their crosshairs after he apparently posted comments on Facebook advocating that “open carry” supporters should be shot.

East Palo Alto Police Det. Rod Tuason apparently posted the remarks on his Facebook page in response to a friend’s status update, which suggested that gun advocates who carry unloaded weapons openly — which is legal in California — should do so in places like “Oakland, Richmond and East Palo Alto” and not just in “hoity toity” cities.
“Haha we had one guy last week try to do it!” Tuason replied. “He got proned out [laid face-down on the ground] and reminded where he was at and that turds will jack him for his gun in a heartbeat!”

Several comments later, the detective suggested shooting the gun rights advocates, some of whom have carried firearms openly in recent weeks in California’s Bay Area, particularly at Starbucks locations.
“Sounds like you had someone practicing their 2nd amendment rights last night!” Tuason wrote. “Should’ve pulled the AR out and prone them all out! And if one of them makes a furtive movement … 2 weeks off!!!” — referring to the modified duty, commonly known as desk duty, that typically follows any instance in which an officer is investigated for firing his weapon.

Those comments caught the attention of a California attorney and blogger, as well as a Virginia man who started a Facebook group calling for Tuason’s termination.
John Taylor, whose Facebook group had 54 members as of midday Friday, said the
Facebook thread confirmed gun owners’ worst fears.

“Any sworn officer who suggests shooting law-abiding citizens for exercising their most basic constitutional rights deserves the full wrath of America’s gun owners,” Taylor told FoxNews.com. “It’s an affront.”

California’s Penal Code makes it illegal to carry concealed weapons without a county-issued license. But it is legal to carry an unloaded weapon in plain view in a holster. In most cases, it is illegal for an unconcealed weapon to be loaded.
Taylor, of Arlington, Va., who has a concealed weapons permit in his home state, said he planned to write a letter to the East Palo Alto Police Department demanding that Tuason be fired.

“The targeting, harassment and intimidation of law-abiding citizens who are peacefully agitating for their rights by a police officer is an abomination to the Constitution, and is in fact the exact reason our Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment,” Taylor said. “Police officers who think they are going to get between law-abiding Americans and their Second Amendment rights are going to find themselves in the line of fire.”
Tuason’s comments were first noticed by California attorney Kevin Thomason, who posted a screen grab of the detective’s remarks on his Web site on Sunday.

“[Tuason] didn’t realize that actual PRO-GUN people also read Facebook,” Thomason wrote. “Amazingly, he posted the following comment about law abiding gun owners on a friend’s page. Basically, he’s saying ‘prone them out’ (face down on the ground), and if anyone moves, kill them. I don’t make this crap up.”

Thomason, a member of the National Rifle Association, wrote that Tuason’s comments were “worth a call” to the East Palo Alto City Council, as well as to his superior officers.
Tuason, who has since removed his Facebook profile, did not return messages seeking comment on Friday. He is reportedly being investigated by the police department’s professional standards division regarding the Facebook remarks.
East Palo Alto Police Sgt. Rod Norris said he was unable to comment on the matter, but Capt. Carl Estelle told the San Jose Mercury News that police officials must be careful not to violate Tuason’s First Amendment rights, since the comments appeared on his personal Web site.

“In no way are his personal comments reflective of any policies or procedures here at the department nor does he speak for the police department,” Estelle told the newspaper.