Guns and Ammo Enthusiast Blog A blog for and by Guns and Ammo Enthusiast's

NRA National Riffle Association cares more about their own political victories then the second amendment of the US Constitution we have proof.

The NRA is reportedly threatening to campaign against a pro-gun Iowa legislator because he is pushing a bill that is too pro-gun.

Rep. Kent Sorenson is an outspoken gun advocate and one of the leading voices for 2nd Amendment rights in the Iowa legislature. He introduced and pushed for a right-to-carry bill that would have given people the right to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise, without having to obtain a permit. The bill did not pass because of a tie vote. Other compromise bills have also been introduced. Sorenson is against these “watered down” bills, saying they don’t provide true gun rights.

The NRA is involved in crafting one of these compromise bills that was introduced last week by two traditionally anti-gun politicians. The bill was written in such a way that moderates could support it, giving it a better chance of passing.

Sorenson came out against the NRA bill. So according to a report on Ammoland.com, a lobbyist working for the NRA went to Sorenson and told him if he didn’t support the bill, the NRA would work to get his opponent elected in an upcoming election — an anti-gun candidate at that.

The NRA has not commented on the accusation.

Over the weekend the Iowa Senate approved a bill that overhauls the system for issuing permits to carry concealed weapons. It requires that sheriffs give a reason if they deny a permit and make such decisions based on consistent state guidelines.

Arizona Senate has given preliminary approval to legislation that would make Arizona the third state allowing people to carry concealed weapons without a permit

The Arizona Senate on Tuesday gave preliminary approval to legislation that would make Arizona the third state allowing people to carry concealed weapons without a permit.
The Senate approved the measure in a voice vote, setting the stage for a formal vote. Passage would send it to the House.
The measure would make it legal for any U.S. citizen 21 or older to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona without the permit now required. Currently, carrying a hidden firearm without a permit is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.
If the legislation is enacted, Arizona would join Alaska and Vermont in not requiring permits to carry concealed weapons.
The Wyoming House in February approved a bill to allow residents to carry concealed weapons without a permit, but the measure died in the Senate after gun-rights groups angered lawmakers with a massive e-mail campaign that clogged their inboxes.
By eliminating the permit requirement, Arizonans no longer would have to undergo background checks and take training classes to carry hidden guns. They would still be subject to background checks required under federal law when buying a gun from a store.
People carrying a concealed weapon would be required to tell a police officer if asked, and the officer could temporarily take the weapon while communicating with the gun carrier.
Mesa Republican Sen. Russell Pearce sponsored the legislation. Pearce said lawmakers removed a provision that would have allowed concealed weapons in some public buildings and events, following a request by Gov. Jan Brewer’s office. And they added a provision making it illegal to carry a hidden firearm while committing a felony.
The changes prompted the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police to drop its opposition to the bill. The organization’s president, Sahuarita Police Chief John Harris, said the chiefs saw the bill was going to pass anyway so they wanted to ensure it was as favorable as possible.
Supporters have said criminals don’t honor current laws, so the permitting requirements only burden law-abiding citizens who just want to protect themselves.
John Wentling, vice president of gun-rights lobbying group Arizona Citizens Defense League, said nearly all adults are allowed to carry a gun openly in Arizona and shouldn’t face extra restrictions just to hide the gun.
“To have them jump through all these hoops just to untuck their shirt just seems unconscionable,” Wentling said.
Opponents have said eliminating the permit requirement would pose risks to police officers and the public, partly through accidental gun discharges by people not adequately trained in firearms safety.
Under the legislation, permits still could be obtained on an optional basis so Arizonans could carry concealed weapons in states with reciprocity agreements. Permits also would be required to carry weapons in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.
Senators beat back an attempt to add an amendment requiring sellers at gun shows to verify buyers’ citizenship.
Arizona in 2009 loosened its gun laws to lift a ban on guns in establishments that serve alcohol, although gun-bearers still cannot drink alcohol and establishments can ban firearms.
Brewer, a Republican who took office in January 2009, signed that measure into law. Her predecessor, Democrat Janet Napolitano, vetoed several measures pushed by gun-rights supporters.

Experts talk about what happens to Chicago’s 28-year-old gun ban

Indiana Senate has set the standard for Second Amendment rights we all should live by and be a federal law at that

In a world where the average citizen’s Second Amendment rights are constantly being undermined, we need all the help we can get. For the time being, we’re safe — at least in Indiana.

Well, as long as you leave your firearm in your car at work or the government declares a state of emergency that leaves law enforcement and military resources stretched thin.

On Feb. 22, the Indiana Senate voted 41-9 to pass House Bill 1065, also known as the Indiana Emergency Powers Bill. The bill prevents law enforcement and military personnel from confiscating legally owned firearms and ammunition from law-abiding citizens in a declared state of emergency, such as during a natural disaster or attack.

Another provision in the bill allows employees the right to keep firearms stored and locked in their vehicles while they are at their place of employment, guaranteeing that they won’t get fired as a result.

Let me say that I cannot adequately convey how important this is to the pro-firearms movement. It takes into consideration the safety of the average citizen in the event of a national emergency, where sometimes the only protection one has is one’s self.

A law like this certainly would have been useful in post-Katrina New Orleans, where police confiscated firearms — at gunpoint — and left city dwellers defenseless from looters, animals and politicians.

I can see the reasoning behind the decision to confiscate handguns, shotguns and rifles when trying to forcibly evacuate people from their own homes in the wake of the worst tragedy that has befallen a city. It’s like removing a goalie from a soccer game, which is the one thing that keeps you from getting the ball where it needs to go. Law enforcement is likely stretched thin enough that dealing with firearm-toting citizens who may potentially be criminals is one thing it doesn’t need on its plate when trying to force people from their homes.

But what about those who decided to stay? When law enforcement is stretched thin, so is protection. The police aren’t going to be everywhere at once in the event of a national emergency. Police aren’t even obligated to protect us in the first place.

Seriously. The Supreme Court decided in Castle Rock v. Gonzalez in 2005 that police have no constitutionally mandated duty to protect and serve. This basically leaves us at the mercy of local law enforcement’s code of ethics and guidelines.

With that decision, this law gains even more ground. A significant natural disaster that would put Indiana in a declared state of emergency is not likely anytime in the near future. It is still nice, however, to have some reassurance that when things go to hell in a hand basket, we’ll still have the ability to defend ourselves.

The Katrina example is a bit dated. Since then, former Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco signed into law a National Rifle Association-backed Emergency Powers Protection Act, similar to the bill passed in Indiana. Also, to its credit, the New Orleans Police Department is returning confiscated firearms to their rightful owners through a form that can be submitted to the police department in person.

As for the other provision of the new Indiana bill, employers will no longer be allowed to punish employees for keeping legally owned firearms in their vehicles. It reinforces that Second Amendment rights don’t fall through when driving to and from work.

I’ll argue the other side before giving some examples. Opponents of keeping firearms locked in cars on company property posit that it may lead to another massacre such as the factory shooting in January at ABB Power in Missouri, which left three dead and five others wounded. The gunman arrived at the facility with several firearms and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.

That’s bad. Take it into consideration, however, that no trifling corporate policy on storing guns in one’s vehicle is going to stop a guy from shooting up his workplace if he really sets his mind to it. The only people that this policy affects are those who use their firearms for self-defense or who just haven’t gotten around to removing them from their vehicle after a hunting excursion or a trip to the range.

I’ll admit that if my place of employment knew what heat I was packing in my car at any given time before this law passed, I’d be out on the street playing bongos for cash. I keep a loaded pistol-grip shotgun in my car wherever I go (save for school, naturally). I’m not fooling around.

Neither should you. Exercise your right while you still have it because there are people who would take it away from you as soon as they get the chance.

Great posters on guns

Thanks to the folks over at http://www.theamericanjingoist.net for these gun posters. We hope you will like them. We sure did.

Baikal MP-153 Shotgun Review

This is an Baikal MP-153 Shotgun Review

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.”

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.