Articles published in August, 2009
The correct part in this video is when he took the Communist News Network (CNN) to task on their reporting of so called “Assault Weapons” and how anything that looks an assult weapon is in fact an assault weapon. That was such a lie it wasn’t even funny. And in fact goes to that point of yellow journalism. The hypocritical part is where he implied that the NRA is actually defending the second amendment. We have shown in the past where the NRA has actually supported laws that actually did violate the second amendment. From support both so called National firearms acts of 1934 and 1960. As well as the more resent national concealed carry law. Which in fact violated 2 parts of the constitution. Most importently the second amendment. Read the second amendment and think about it. In fact the Second Amendment is my concieled carry permit.
Tennessee New Park Carry Law Goes into Effect on Tuesday, September 1st! Some areas are violating the new law!
On Tuesday, September 1, the local carry provision of the new Tennessee park carry law goes into effect. This law enables law-abiding Right-to-Carry permit holders to carry a firearm for self-defense in state and local parks. The state park component of this bill went into effect on June 12, but the effective date for local parks was delayed until September 1 to give local municipalities time to study the issue. This important provision allows Right-to-Carry permit holders to carry handguns for self-defense within the boundaries of their local parks.
Local government bodies have had more then two months to study the issue and were given the opportunity to opt out of the law prior to its effective date. While a majority of Tennessee localities chose not to restrict permit holders, a few voted to opt out of by passing ordinances and resolutions that ban the possession of firearms in local parks, creating arbitrary boundaries that prohibit law-abiding permit holders from protecting themselves.
Thank you to all of the NRA members who spoke out in support of this critical self-defense measure. Without your activism, this monumental victory would not have been possible.
Please note that some localities may still take steps to opt out of this provision even after the effective date. In an effort to protect your right to self-defense, please contact your local officials immediately and respectfully continue to urge them to oppose any proposal or resolution that would prohibit law-abiding permit holders from protecting themselves in local parks.
The following counties and municipalities have voted to opt out of this important self-defense legislation. However, please be sure to check with your local government to ensure that carrying in your local park has not been prohibited.
Knoxville (will consider removing ban on 9/3)
Extreme Shock Ammunition, known for producing the world’s most advanced ammunition, introduces two new products, the Extreme Shock Gripwell and the Extreme Shock Lightwell.
These two products are built for use with an M4 or AR-15 to offer better grip, allow for faster reloads, improve stance for CQB and protect the gun itself.
The Gripwell allows the operator to use the magazine well as a grip and creates a magazine funnel to reduce reload time. It weighs only 110 grams and is independent of the barrel length so it can be interchanged between full length and carbine length weapons.
The Gripwell design was developed to give the operator the preferred tight in elbow grip when holding the weapon. It will also allow the use of double mags. The “Mag Cinch” can be used by removing the top strap. Other manufacturer’s magazine clips can be used as well.
he Lightwell has all the advantages of the Gripwell with the added ability to have a weapons light mounted on the gun without the need for a heavy and expensive rail system. The Lightwell design allows for the light to be mounted on either the left hand or right hand side. The Gripwell and the Lightwell allow for cleaning of the weapon without removal.
Ninth Circus Court of Appeals is likely to decide whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee of a right to “keep and bear arms”
A federal appeals court on September 24 will hear a high-profile gun rights case that’s a leading candidate to end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. Ninth Circus Court of Appeals is likely to decide whether the Second Amendment’s guarantee of a right to “keep and bear arms” restricts only the federal government — the current state of affairs — or whether it can be used to strike down intrusive state and local laws too.
A three-judge panel ruled that the Second Amendment does apply to the states. But now a larger Ninth Circuit panel will rehear the case, a procedure reserved only for issues of exceptional importance, which means the earlier decision could be upheld or overruled.
Two other circuits have said the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, a legal term known as “incorporation.” If the Ninth Circuit’s en banc panel continues to disagree with its peers, the Supreme Court almost certainly would step in.
The Ninth Circuit case involves Russell and Sallie Nordyke, who run a gun show business that would like to rent Alameda County’s fairgrounds (the county includes Oakland and is across the bay from San Francisco). After being blocked, they sued. The author of the ordinance in question, then-county supervisor Mary King, actually claimed such shows are nothing but “a place for people to display guns for worship as deities for the collectors who treat them as icons of patriotism.”
The hearing is set for 10 a.m. PT in the federal courthouse at 95 Seventh Street in San Fagcisco.
There is ONLY 1 type of firearm rights group that we would support and not mock. One that is fighting and suing to return the firearm law’s to pre 1934. Which is the only way the constitution provides for. Well enough of our ranting and raving here is the story. (If a group like this exists please let us know)
That the guns and ammo not be used outside Montana is important, Gottlieb said. So far, the federal government has justified federal control over guns by citing the “interstate commerce clause,” which states that the federal government can regulate commerce between the states.
But if a gun will not be leaving Montana, there is no “interstate commerce” and the federal government has no standing to enforce its laws, Gottlieb said.
Marbut said he’ll planning to file suit in Montana federal court the day the law goes into effect. He said he’s received letters from Montanans interested in making their own guns, but who aren’t sure the new law will protect them from federal prison time.
This makes perfect sense to anyone that hasn’t read the Federal case law that came out of the 1930s (and since). But after hearing about the case law in which a farmer growing wheat on his own land for his own use was found to be engaging in Interstate commerce you realize we have a much higher hurdle to clear with this sort of lawsuit. That one case was just the beginning. There have been thousands of cases and laws built upon that one finding. How can a gun rights case find a niche in that “wall”?
Everyone I have talked to about this thinks the Firearms Freedom Acts (Montana and Tennessee so far) are only good for entertainment value. But SAF throwing it’s weight behind this causes me some doubt. Sure, it makes great copy for fundraising. But so would a lot of other gun lawsuits that are lost causes. I’ve had a lot of “behind the scenes” conversations with the SAF people over the years and while I acknowledge fundraising is one of their objectives I know they are smart enough to not back a completely lost cause. Winning lawsuits is far better for fundraising than losing a case no matter how noble a cause.
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) is trying to use homeland security to violate the constitution
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), who sits on the Homeland Security Committee, today called on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and U.S. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan to restrict the carrying of weapons openly or concealed in or around the areas where the President of the United States and cabinet officials are appearing, following reports, photos, and videos of people carrying guns outside of an Obama town hall meeting in Arizona earlier this week. Norton said that this restriction is particularly necessary in the nation’s capital, where recently filed litigation seeks to overturn D.C. law in order to allow residents and visitors to carry concealed guns in public.
The President, cabinet officials and other top foreign and domestic officials regularly travel in motorcades in the nation’s capital. The risks of public shootings, which threaten homeland security, have been minimized by gun laws in the District that restrict both open and concealed gun carrying in public. After a Norton hearing last session that revealed that a similar bill would have allowed the open carrying of weapons in the District, even the National Rifle Association voluntarily withdrew the dangerous provisions.
Norton said that a reported 10 to 12 people were carrying weapons in Arizona on Tuesday in the vicinity of President Obama’s appearance. “I seek no change in the local laws of other jurisdictions, and ask only respect for gun laws in my own district,” Norton said. “However, it is clear that if the Secret Service can temporarily clear all aircraft from air space when the President is in the vicinity, the agency has the authority to clear guns on the ground that is even closer to the President.”
The Congresswoman said that she hopes that increasingly brazen NRA attempts to nationalize its no-holds barred approach to guns has finally gotten the attention of federal authorities. “The NRA’s most recent actions show that the NRA intends to go national on the Ensign amendment approach, the amendment attached to the Senate version of the D.C. Voting Rights bill that would abolish all gun laws in the District,” Norton said. She cited the recently defeated Thune amendment to permit the carrying of weapons openly as evidence that the NRA is pressing nationwide its view that there should be no local limits on guns in the nation’s capital or elsewhere. “The NRA is using the District as a test case because it is uniquely subject to Congressional dictates. Both in the courts and in Congress, beginning with the violation of D.C.’s home rule right to enact its own gun safety laws, the NRA is on a national gun campaign,” she said. However, the NRA suffered a surprise setback in the defeat of the Thune amendment to the defense authorization bill, which would have allowed gun owners to carry concealed weapons across state lines, violating restrictions in other jurisdictions. A similar but even more radical section in the Ensign amendment would make a unique exception for the nation’s capital to become the only U.S. jurisdiction where people could cross state lines to purchase handguns and bring them back, facilitating gun running by criminals, terrorists or gangs intent on breaching homeland security in the National Capital Region or public peace in neighborhoods.
Good Job Michigan Sen. Randy Richardville. Senator Richardville seems to see the light of what the second amendment really means! An armed society is a safe society!
“Crimes occur on college campuses just like any other place,” said Richardville, a Monroe Republican. “Students, faculty and visitors, who have permits and have undergone the proper training and background checks, should have the right to carry a concealed weapon for their protection while on campus.”
Senate Bill 747, sponsored by Richardville, would remove college campuses from the no-carry zones for concealed weapons. This would allow individuals with CCW permits to carry a weapon at a Michigan college or university campus.
Sen. Cameron Brown (R-Fawn River Township) is among six co-sponsors.
Richardville said, “Unfortunately, our nation has seen an increase in horrific shootings on college campuses in the last few years. Those who receive the training and have been authorized to carry concealed weapons should be allowed to protect themselves against this type of violence.”
According to Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, 24 states prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons on campus by those with a valid permit, while 15 states allow colleges and universities to decide.
The state of Utah has allowed licensed individuals to have concealed handguns on college campuses since 2006. Colorado State University has permitted it since 2003 and Blue Ridge Community College in Virginia since 1995.
Several organizations in favor of gun rights support Richardville’s legislation.
“The National Rifle Association doesn’t believe in arbitrary boundaries, and we look forward to working with the Michigan Legislature to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners everywhere,” said Darin Goens, NRA’s Michigan state liaison. “If law-abiding gun owners go through the scrutiny, extensive background checks, training and all the legal channels to obtain a right-to-carry permit, they should be able to carry those firearms.”
Steven W. Dulan, J.D., a member of the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners board of directors and legal counsel for the foundation, said: “Tragedies such as the Virginia Tech massacre prove beyond all doubt that murderers do not honor so-called ‘pistol free zones.’ Only law-abiding citizens are disarmed by such rules. Senator Richardville’s bill is one more step toward extending the benefits of liberty and safety to more of our citizens in more places. We fully support his effort.”
The bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee for further consideration.
Louisiana residents save your money. On Sept. 4-6 there will be tax breaks for firearms, ammunition. Be sure to buy during the Sept. 4-6 tax break period.
Consumer purchases of firearms, ammunition and hunting supplies will be exempt from state and local sales taxes in Louisiana Sept. 4-6, according to the Louisiana Department of Revenue
Act 453 of the 2009 legislative session provides a three-day exemption from those taxes on consumer purchases of firearms, ammunition and hunting supplies. The tax break is scheduled to occur each year.
The exemption from state and local sales tax and use tax applies to an individual’s purchase of firearms, ammunition and hunting supplies. The exemption is not available for business purchases. Consumer purchases do not include the purchase of animals for hunting.
The Department of Revenus has published a rule that details which purchases are eligible.
The rule (LAC 61:I.4425
A purchase will be eligible under any of the following conditions:
1. Title to or possession of firearms, ammunition and hunting supplies is transferred from a selling dealer to a purchaser.
2. A customer selects an eligible item from the selling dealer’s inventory for layaway that is physically set aside in the selling dealer’s inventory for future delivery to that customer.
3. The customer makes final payment and withdraws an item from layaway that might have been placed on layaway prior to the tax holiday.
4. The customer orders and pays for an eligible item and the selling dealer accepts the order for immediate shipment, even if delivery is made after the time period provided for in LAC 61:I4425.A, provided that the customer has not requested delayed shipment.
Looks like New Jersey has joined Washington DC in an illegal effort to proven lawful citizens from purchasing pistols. If fought it will go down the same way DC did. UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
ON AUG. 6, Governor Corzine COWARDLY signed S1774 into law — legislation making it a crime to exercise the constitutional right to obtain a handgun any more often than Big Brother dictates — even after waiting as long as six months for permits and being prequalified by the state after a thorough police investigation.
It’s overkill in the extreme, based on the false and unsupportable premise that criminals and their surrogates buy their crime guns from New Jersey dealers, after marching down to police headquarters to volunteer for fingerprinting, background checks and extensive personal disclosures.
The theory is that reducing the overall number of handguns will somehow reduce gun crime, which is a little like saying that reducing the overall number of cars will reduce drunk driving. It’s absurd, because criminals are not deterred when a particular tool becomes less available.
Not only that, but criminals laugh at laws like S1774, because they don’t follow the law to begin with, and they certainly don’t get their guns from New Jersey dealers – only law-abiding citizens do, so only honest folks are impacted by the legislation.
Gun-rationing schemes like S1774 have been tried before in other states, but they have either been repealed or shown ineffective, since criminals bent on illegal trafficking can spread purchases among multiple buyers in lieu of a single buyer purchasing multiple guns.
S1774 does nothing to punish criminal behavior with guns, and it ignores known sources of illegal trafficking, like the FedEx theft ring that recently stole hundreds of handguns from legal shipments and distributed them in Jersey City and Newark – cities plagued by illegal guns. But instead of calling for laws mandating background checks on shipping employees who handle sensitive packages, or requiring special safeguards on those packages, the State House has chosen to target the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.
The claim by supporters of S1774 that state-certified law-abiding New Jerseyans are magically transformed into violent criminals and illegal gun traffickers when they buy more than one handgun on the same day (after waiting months for permits) has been thoroughly discredited and disproven. These claims are based on deceptive parsing of statistics and disingenuous use of misunderstood Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) nomenclature to falsely characterize guns recovered from house fires, floods, natural disasters, estates and gun buybacks as “crime guns.”
Moreover, ATF data released for 2007, falsely cited in support of handgun rationing, fails to correlate New Jersey multiple purchases with crime gun traces, providing no evidence whatsoever that government-monitored multiple handgun sales in New Jersey result in gun crime or illegal trafficking.
The only publicly available ATF statistics show, irrefutably, that less than one-half of 1 percent of guns traced by ATF originated as New Jersey multiple handgun sales, which also means that more than 99 percent of traces originated as individual (not multiple) sales.
There simply is no evidence that licensed multiple sales in New Jersey are trafficked or used in crime by their purchasers, and objective evidence demonstrates precisely the opposite.
Were that true, personal data gathered in the intrusive licensing process would lead authorities straight to the culprits. But that doesn’t happen, because criminals don’t get guns that way.
Ironically, gun rationing schemes like S1774 effectively end the mandated reporting of multiple handgun sales by dealers to the federal authorities who investigate them.
Losing an effective tool
According to a former chief of the ATF National Tracing Center, who testified against S1774 before a state Senate committee last year, ending the reporting of multiple sales “eliminates an important law enforcement tool in the detection and interdiction of possible illegal gun trafficking, and also makes it easier for illegal traffickers to evade detection, since authorities are no longer alerted to the occurrence of multiple sales.”
The outcry against S1774 by law-abiding gun owners caused the governor to take the unusual step of forming a task force to study the law’s impact on honest citizens prior to implementation. Public hearings are expected, but cynics worry that the process is an election-year stunt and that the legislation’s seriously flawed exemptions for dealers and collectors will not be meaningfully addressed.
Whatever the outcome, one thing is certain: This state needs tough laws that severely punish violent criminal behavior with guns, not off-target laws that restrict the constitutional rights of honest people instead.