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

We win you loose dems Supreme Court rules in favor of citizens and gun owners in McDonald vrs. Chicago

We would like to thank the SAF for bringing this suit to the high court. Note it was not the NRA that did it.


Today’s Supreme Court ruling in the Second Amendment Foundation’s challenge of the Chicago handgun ban is “our call to action,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb.

“This morning’s high court ruling clearly shows that the right of the individual citizen to have a gun is constitutionally protected in every corner of the United States,” Gottlieb stated. “We are already preparing to challenge other highly-restrictive anti-gun laws across the country. Our objective is to win back our firearms freedoms one lawsuit at a time.”

In striking down Chicago’s handgun ban, and incorporating the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms so that it applies to state and local governments as well as the federal government, the high court affirmed that a constitutionally-protected civil right cannot be arbitrarily regulated as though it were a privilege, he added.

Gottlieb announced that in recognition of SAF’s victory, the organization will host the 2011 Gun Rights Policy Conference in the Chicago area. The event will serve as SAF’s official celebration of today’s Supreme Court ruling.

“By that time,” he said, “we should have some exciting news about other actions we are currently planning.”

The ruling marks another important Second Amendment victory for attorney Alan Gura, who also successfully argued the Heller case in 2008. This time around, Mr. Gura represented SAF, the Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) and four Chicago residents. The case was McDonald v. City of Chicago, named for plaintiff Otis McDonald.

“I’m glad the Supreme Court has ended the years of oppression of law-abiding gun owners by the City of Chicago,” added ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson.

“Thanks to the Supreme Court,” Gottlieb observed, “average Chicago residents like Mr. McDonald will now enjoy the same right of self-defense as a squad of bodyguards provides to Mayor Richard Daley. Now we can work to lower the deplorable violent crime rate in Chicago, something that the anti-gun mayor’s policies have been unable to accomplish.

“The Second Amendment Foundation is delighted to have worked with Alan Gura, who brought together the individual plaintiffs and organized this landmark case for us and our colleagues at ISRA,” Gottlieb concluded. “Today, it feels great to be the most effective community organizer Chicago has ever had.”

The NRA should be ashamed of itself

Maybe it’s petty jealously or pure greed, but we do not see another option with the NRA supporting H.R. 5175. It is very apparent that the NRA is trying to put all other gun rights groups out of business. A monopoly case could be made. However the government will not bring a case against themselves for a monopoly they create. This bill H.R. 5175 could shut down all other groups like GOA, SAF, and others. Is the NRA upset that not only lawsuits got filed but got to the supreme court by another organization specifically the SAF? (Second Amendment Foundation). All members of the nra need to contact the nra and tell them it is absolutely not a good idea to sell out all the other firearm and second amendment groups. This verges on the side of criminal. It is at the VERY LEAST unethical. If the nra gets in then ALL OTHER groups need to be in as well. All or nothing you petty nra. Deal with the fact that others are doing the same job or get out of the business all together.

Big mother government grabbing more power over the second amendment, business, and firearm rights

In a recent ruling regarding the “transfer” of firearms, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATFE) has reversed policies that have been in place for more than 40 years.

In the ruling, BATFE declared that a temporary shipment of a firearm by a federal firearms licensee to a non-employee for business reasons (such as a manufacturer’s shipment to a gun writer or engineering consultant for a technical evaluation), will now be considered a “transfer” and require completion of a Form 4473 and background check.

This reverses a ruling issued in 1969, right after the passage of the Gun Control Act, although BATFE provided no explanation of the need for the change. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, BATFE hasn’t been able to name a single case in which a gun temporarily shipped under the old rule has been used in crime.

The short-term impact may be limited, because many major manufacturers already require firearms sent to non-employees to go through the transfer process. But manufacturers who didn’t follow that practice will now have to ship guns to licensed dealers to complete these “transfers.”

Furthermore, the ruling only applies to temporary shipments by federal firearms licensees to carry out those licensees’ business operations. Given that limitation, the new ruling won’t affect private individuals who ship guns to themselves when traveling to shoot or hunt, or who ship firearms to a manufacturer or gunsmith for repair or customization.

However, this new ruling may have broader implications for future issues. For example, some have suggested that although the ruling doesn’t relate directly to rental of guns for use on commercial shooting ranges, its reasoning might require rentals to be treated as “transfers” subject to recordkeeping and background check requirements.

Great gun news from the Hawaii front! Your second amendment rights are now protected.

2nd Amendment Rights Protected During Emergency In Hawaii; “Castle Doctrine” Enacted As Governor Signs Laws

Governor Linda Lingle today signed into law two important bills preserving 2nd Amendment rights passed by the recently adjourned 25th Hawaii State Legislature.

SB 358, SD1, HD2 introduced by State Senator Sam Slom (R-8th O’ahu – Hawaii Kai to Diamondhead) (Act 96) establishes provisions relating to prohibition against seizure of firearms or ammunition during emergency or disaster, suspension of permit or license. Prohibits any person or government entity to seize or confiscate, under any civil defense, emergency, or disaster relief powers or functions conferred, or during any civil defense emergency period, or during any time of national emergency or crisis, any firearm or ammunition and permit or license of any individual who is lawfully permitted to carry or possess the firearm or ammunition and who carries, possesses, or uses the firearm or ammunition in a lawful manner and in accordance with the criminal laws of this State. — Amends provisions relating to civil defense powers, in general. Section Affected: 134- (1 SECTION), 128-6.

Slom, a Trustee and Secretary of the Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation said he introduced the legislation in part as a result of Hurricane Katrina’s aftermath in New Orleans when law enforcement officials went door-to-door and seized legal firearms from legally registered owners. The court subsequently overturned the state’s actions. He said he also had worried constituents call this year during the Hawaii Tidal Wave alert. Citizens were concerned that the police would not be able to protect everyone and their property during a major emergency.

Slom added, ” I emphasize this law applies to legally owned and registered firearms. This is a good bill and Governor Linda Lingle should be thanked for her prompt attention to this important legislation which passed the Senate unanimously. Hawaii now joins 30 other states with similar legislation.”

The other bill signed today (Act 97) is SB0532 SD1 HD1 CD1 RELATING TO LIMITING CIVIL LIABILITY. Also known as the “CASTLE DOCTRINE”, and originally introduced by Slom, the version that passed was sponsored by Senate Judiciary Chairman Brian Taniguchi (D-Manoa), By Request. Current Hawaii law requires a homeowner to “retreat” from his or her own home when invaded by a criminal engaging in a felony. The new law establishes provisions relating to owner to felon; limited liability. Provides that any owner of any other interest in real property shall not be liable to any perpetrator for any injury or death that occurs upon the real property during the course or after the commission of certain felony offenses. –
Section Affected: 663- (1 SECTION) OWNER TO FELON.

Slom said of this bill, “It represents common sense and confirms in Hawaii the old adage, “A man’s (or woman’s) home is his (her) castle.” It should put potential criminals on notice that they no longer can break in, commit a felony, threaten the owner and escape with no risk of personal harm. Both laws are about taking back our individual, Constitutional rights”

“National Security” will stop Firearm sales, see the news and the bill here

A little publicized hearing for 5/5/10:




In February 2004, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Policy (OLP) to form a working group to review federal firearms and explosives laws*particularly in regard to NICS background checks*to determine whether additional authority should be sought from Congress to prevent firearms and explosives transfers to known and suspected terrorists. In the 111th Congress, Senator Frank Lautenberg and Representative Peter King have reintroduced a bill (S. 1317/H.R. 2159) that would authorize the Attorney General to deny the transfer of firearms or the issuance of firearms and explosives licenses to known or suspected terrorists. This bill reportedly reflects a legislative proposal developed by DOJ.


In general, this bill would amend the Gun Control Act (GCA) to grant the Attorney General the discretionary authority to deny a firearm transfer or state-issued firearms permit to any prospective transferee or permittee through Brady background checks, if the Attorney General determines that the prospective transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or to have been engaged in conduct constituting, preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism, and has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use the firearm in connection with terrorism (proposed 18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B). The bill would make similar amendments to the provisions of the GCA governing the processes by which federal firearms dealer licenses are issued and revoked (18 U.S.C. §§ 923(d) and (e)).


The bill would also amend the GCA provision (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) that enumerates several classes of persons who are prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition, so that it would include persons who were the subject of terrorism-related determinations (described above). The bill would amend the GCA provision (18 U.S.C. § 922(d)) that prohibits any person from transferring a firearm to any prohibited person to include any person who was the subject of a terrorism-related determination as well. In addition, the bill would amend the NICS background check provisions (18 U.S.C. § 922(t)) to reflect that the Attorney General would have this new discretionary authority under the proposed 18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B.


With regard to NICS denials of firearms transfers or state-issued firearms permits based upon terrorist watch list hits and subsequent determinations by the Attorney General, the bill would amend the Brady Act (P.L. 103-159) to allow a denied prospective transferee to request from the Attorney General the reasons for the denial, but it would also give the Attorney General the authority to withhold those reasons if he determines that such a disclosure would compromise national security. The bill would make a similar amendment to the Brady Act in regard to correction of erroneous information.


Furthermore, the bill would amend the GCA provision that addresses erroneous denials (18 U.S.C. § 925A), to allow any person denied a firearms-related transfer or permit to challenge that determination in U.S. court within 60 days of that determination. This proposed amendment would require the court to sustain the Attorney General’s determination upon a showing by the U.S. Government a preponderance of evidence standard that the determination satisfied the proposed provisions described above (18 U.S.C. §§ 922A and B). The proposed amendment would also allow the court to rely upon summaries or redacted versions of documents underlying those determinations, if those documents contained information that could compromise national security, but it would also allow a court to review the full, undisclosed documents ex parte and in camera at the court’s option or on the motion of the petitioner (denied person). The proposed amendment would also allow the court to determine whether the summaries or redacted versions of the documents were fair and accurate representations of the underlying documents; however, it would not allow the court to overturn the Attorney General’s determination based on the full and un-redacted documents.

Looks like Pklahoma is the state to live for FREE Americans

An update from Oklahoma :

Oklahoma law passed, 37 to 9, had a few liberals in the mix, an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values…! HB 1330

Guess what………. Oklahoma did it anyway.

Oklahoma recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen. They all scattered. HB 1804. Hope we didn’t send any of them to your state This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake.

Guess what………. Oklahoma did it anyway.

Recently we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegals to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional. SB 1102

Guess what…….. Oklahoma did it anyway.

Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. Joining Texas, Montana and Utah as the only states to do so. More states are likely to follow: Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, the Carolina’s, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi, Florida. Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again. HJR 1003

The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I’m sure that was a set back for the criminals (and Obamaites). Liberals didn’t like it — But ……..

Guess what……….. Oklahoma did it anyway.

Just this month, the state has voted and passed a law that ALL driver’s license exams will be printed in English, and only English, and no other language. They have been called racist for doing this, but the fact is that ALL of the road signs are in English only. If you want to drive in Oklahoma , you must read and write English. Really simple.

By the way, Obama does not like any of this.

Guess what….who cares… Oklahoma is doing it anyway.

Federal government, BATFE, congress, president, and even the Supreme Court, you laws and rulings, violate the 9th and 10th amendment of the constitution. So thus unconstitutional and thus unenforceable. So says Alaska. Great news for gun rights and second amendment supporters.

Our legislators have come up with the statutory equivalent of my favorite lines from “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.”

“Badges? We ain’t got no badges. We don’t need no badges! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ badges!”

In approving Rep. Mike Kelly’s HB 186, the Legislature is officially on record declaring that we don’t need no stinkin’ badges from the Federales to make and sell guns or ammo in Alaska.

Fifty of our 60 lawmakers agree that the U.S. Supreme Court, the Congress and the president have been wrong for a long time about what the 9th and 10th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution mean regarding the powers of the federal government.

With Gov. Sean Parnell’s signature, it will soon be official state policy that in-state gun makers selling guns in Alaska are not subject to federal laws, federal regulations or federal registration, despite what the federal government says.

The message to the future firearms industry in Alaska is to not worry about federal prosecution or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The bill is almost the same as a measure approved in Montana and a half-dozen other states. One difference is that Alaska lawmakers did not include the comment by Idaho lawmakers that they “are declaring their intention of Idaho becoming the freest state in the Union.”

Perhaps the biggest difference, however, is that lawmakers in those other states, including Montana, Idaho, Arizona and Utah, placed limits on the size of weapons that are free from federal regulation.

In the other states, people still have to follow federal laws if the guns “cannot be carried and used by one person.”

Under the Alaska measure, however, the guns can be bigger than something one person can carry.

In the other states, the laws say that firearms with a bore diameter of more than 1.5 inches that use smokeless powder as a propellant and those that fire two or more projectiles with one pull of the trigger are not free of federal laws. Again, the Alaska measure has no comparable limits.

It is possible that after the Alaska firearms plan becomes law, the BATF will send a letter to federal firearms licensees similar to that which was sent last year to gun dealers in other states. Those letters said that federal law requires a federal license to manufacture firearms or ammo for sale, even if the products remain in state.

But if the feds come knocking on your door for violations of those firearms laws, don’t worry. The Alaska attorney general will defend you with both guns blazing.

No wait, I take that back.

Hold the celebratory gunfire.

The original version of Kelly’s bill said that the Alaska attorney general will ride to the defense of Alaska firearms makers with a posse of lawyers.

But the new state policy now says that the attorney general’s office “may” come to your defense. And you may find $1 million between the cushions on your couch tonight or you may wake up tomorrow as a member of Mensa.

If lawmakers really believe they are right to encourage people to ignore a federal law, they should not have been so wishy-washy with the pledge for free government legal aid.

Congratulations Arizona citizens. Your state has joined the growing list of states with a Constitutional Cary type law. Great job Gov. Jan Brewer

Gov. Jan Brewer signed Senate Bill 1108 into law Friday afternoon. It eliminates the requirement for a concealed-carry weapons permit, but does require gun owners to accurately answer if an officer asks them if they are carrying weapon concealed. It also allows officers to temporarily confiscate a weapon while they are talking to an individual, including during a traffic stop.

“I believe strongly in the individual rights and responsibilities of a free society, and as governor I have pledged a solemn and important oath to protect and defend the Constitution,” Brewer said in a news release. “I believe this legislation not only protects the Second Amendment rights of Arizona citizens, but restores those rights as well.”

The law goes into effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns for this session, which could happen in the next couple of weeks.

Arizona joins Vermont and Alaska in not requiring such permits.

“If you want to carry concealed, and you have no criminal history, you are a good guy, you can do it,” bill sponsor Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, has said of his bill. “It’s a freedom that poses no threat to the public.”

National Rifle Association lobbyist Matt Dogali said the new state law would not violate any current federal requirements.

“There is no federal requirement for a permit or lack thereof,” Dogali said.

The federal government oversees the background-check program required to purchase a weapon, which will still be required in Arizona in most cases.

Brewer last week did sign a separate law that exempts guns made and kept in Arizona from federal regulation, including background checks.

Arizona had 154,279 active permits as of April 4. Permit holders are spread across all ages, races and counties, but White males older than 30 in Maricopa and Pima counties hold the majority, according to the Arizona Department of Public Safety data.

The permits generated $1.8 million in revenue last fiscal year, according to DPS. The money is used to help cover costs for enforcing laws related to the Highway Patrol, operating the concealed-carry weapon-licensing program and impounding vehicles.

Arizona’s permit process will remain in place, and many gun owners may still choose to get a permit. Permits would still be needed in order to carry a weapon into a restaurant or bar that serves alcohol. They would also be needed if an Arizonan wants to carry his or her gun concealed in most other states.

For those who do choose to get a permit, the education requirements do change under the new law. Classes are no longer required to be a set number of hours or include any hands-on use of the weapon. Those who don’t get a permit would not be required to get any training or education.

Retired Mesa police officer Dan Furbee runs a business teaching permit and other gun safety classes. He said if most people choose not to get a permit, it will put several hundred Arizona firearms instructors out of business.

“It’s going to hurt,” he said.

But he said what really concerns him is that the new law will allow people who have had no education about Arizona’s laws and no training on the shooting range to carry a concealed gun. The eight-hour class currently required to get a permit includes information on state law and gun safety, as well as requires students to be able to hit a target 14 out of 20 times. Furbee said his class at Mesa-based Ultimate Accessories costs $79, plus $60 for the five-year permit.

“I fully agree that we have a right to keep and bear arms,” Furbee said. “But if you are not responsible enough to take a class and learn the laws, you are worse than part of the problem.”

He said it’s not uncommon for students to walk into his classroom and pull a new gun out of a box with no idea how to hold it and no understanding of the laws surrounding it.

“If you are going to carry a concealed weapon, you should have some kind of training and show that you are at least competent to know how the gun works and be able to hit a target,” he said. “You owe the people around you a measure of responsibility.”

This new law is the latest of several that have passed over the past year since Brewer took over the office from former Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat.

Napolitano vetoed at least a dozen weapons bills that crossed her desk during her seven years in office, all of which would have loosened gun restrictions. In 2005, Napolitano rejected a bill that would have allowed patrons to carry loaded guns into bars and restaurants. In 2008, she also vetoed a bill that would have allowed people to have a hidden gun in vehicles without a concealed-carry permit.

In January 2009, Napolitano resigned to become U.S. Homeland Security secretary and Republican Secretary of State Brewer became governor.

During her first year in office, Brewer signed a bill allowing loaded guns in bars and restaurants, as well as another that prohibits property owners from banning guns from parking areas, so long as the weapons are kept locked in vehicles.

Innocent until proven guilty? Not in Colorado and not when it comes to your constitutional second amendment rights!

This bigoted, hateful, and mean spirited mesure has to be stopped in Colorado or it is possible that it could spead even further. This is a ken to the civil rights movement of the 1900’s and beyond. If they can do this firearm owners and purchasers who will be next?


The Colorado House of Representatives is currently considering legislation that would that would solidify an unconstitutional provision in the state’s background check system.

House Bill 1391, sponsored by State Representative Joe Rice (D-38), would extend a provision in state law that was due to sunset in July 2010. The provision the bill extends would deny gun purchases to those with an arrest on their record, even if they were never convicted. This deny-on-arrest provision would remove a constitutional right to own a firearm based on an arrest (an accusation), NOT a conviction. It directly conflicts with the fundamental American doctrine of “innocent until proven guilty.”

Because the disposition of an arrest record isn’t always available, the burden of proof falls on gun buyers to prove they are eligible to purchase a firearm. In many cases, this costs these individuals thousands of dollars of their own money to prove their innocense.

The bill has been scheduled for a hearing on Monday, April 12, in the House Judiciary Committee. Please call members of the committee and respectfully urge them to vote against HB 1391 and this unconstitutional attack on the Second Amendment rights of Colorado citizens. Contact information can be found below.

State Representative Claire Levy (D-13), Chair
Phone: (303) 866-2578
Email: claire.levy.house@state.co.us

State Representative Beth McCann (D-8), Vice Chair
Phone: (303) 866-2959
Email: beth.mccann.house@state.co.us

State Representative Lois Court (D-6)
Phone: (303) 866-2967
Email: lois.court.house@state.co.us

State Representative Bob Gardner (R-21)
Phone: (303) 866-2191
Email: bob.gardner.house@state.co.us

State Representative Daniel Kagan (D-3)
Phone: (303) 866-2921
Email: repkagan@gmail.com

State Representative Steve King (R-54)
Phone: (303) 866-3068
Email: steve.king.house@state.co.us

State Representative Joe Miklosi (D-9)
Phone: (303) 866-2910
Email: joe@joemiklosi.com

State Representative B.J. Nikkel (R-49)
Phone: (303) 866-2907
Email: rep.nikkel@gmail.com

State Representative Sal Pace (D-46)
Phone: (303) 866-2968
Email: sal.pace.house@state.co.us

State Representative Su Ryden (D-36)
Phone: (303) 866-2942
Email: sy.ryden.house@state.co.us

State Representative Mark Waller (R-15)
Phone: (303) 866-5525
Email: mark.waller.house@state.co.us

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.